A Great Business Opportunity

55 comments on “A Great Business Opportunity ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Stuart Munro 1

   6 May 2018 at 10:18 am

   Alarmist!
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ee6-sI9rdtA
2. Jenny 2

   6 May 2018 at 10:56 am

   New Zealand can lead the world in transitioning to a high-value, clean-tech, post-carbon economy that works for everyone.

   James Shaw

   Or alternatively we could wait until the climate crisis overwhelms our society.

   (Something of which I have some knowledge of.)

   The strategies and choices for our political leaders then, will by necessity be constrained and austere, and will not work for everyone, (or even anyone).

   Driving through miles and miles of withered crops, after crossing the Turkish border into Syria in 2010, we stopped our van at a rural Syrian village beside the highway for lunch, only to be told that there was hardly any food in the whole village, and barely any water.

   https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/05/syria-climate-years-living-dangerously-symbolia/
   • Jenny 2.1

     7 May 2018 at 6:29 am

     Related comments and posts:

     Shock and Thaw

     Hauauru Ma Raki

     Time To Wake Up

     “More bold intervention needed” – Ad

     Northland, crying out for development, could set the pace

     “Solutions Exist” – Ban Ki Moon

     “Solutions exist. The race is on. My challenge to all political and business leaders, all concerned citizens and voters is simple: be at the head of the race. Don’t get left behind. Don’t be on the losing side of history.”

     Ban Ki-Moon

     The alternative
3. Draco T Bastard 3

   6 May 2018 at 11:05 am

   Which might explain why we get the likes of Green Party co-leader James Shaw believing that –

   New Zealand can lead the world in transitioning to a high-value, clean-tech, post-carbon economy that works for everyone.

   Yeah – with just over 1m of sea level rise, we lose huge swathes of agricultural capacity due to all the world’s deltas being inundated and salinated – a loss of some 25% of the world’s crops according to Professor Peter Ward.

   Obviously we need to transition to a non-carbon economy to try to keep emissions and thus sea level rise down. What else would we be doing?

   And then, of course, what sort of agricultural loss would NZ have with 1m of seal level rise? Would it prevent NZ from growing enough food for NZ?

   Now call me dull or unimaginative, but I’m just not seeing the business opportunity in that.

   Developing our silicon reserves and producing solar panels so as to decrease CO2 emissions isn’t a business opportunity?

   As I wrote recently, if we took all of the buildings we currently have – all of the towns and cities in all of the world – and placed them on the rock beneath the ice that is going to be adding to sea levels – then everything we have built everywhere would disappear under the ice; nothing would be poking out. And still we wouldn’t have covered all of the rock that’s sitting beneath the ice that’s coming our way.

   Yep, there’s lots of ice in the world quite a lot of which is going to melt. None of our cities are built on it.

   More importantly, the height of the ice is not the amount that sea levels will rise so there’s a serious disconnect from what you’re saying here to what’s actually going to happen.
   • Bill 3.1

     6 May 2018 at 11:23 am

     Obviously we need to transition to a non-carbon economy to try to keep emissions and thus sea level rise down.

     Sea level will rise by about 20m if we stopped burning all fossil fuels today. It’s “locked in”. How fast it comes up, and how much more will be coming on top of that if we keep on as we are, is all that’s open to question.

     I have no idea what the situation is for domestic agriculture with 1m of sea level rise.

     Developing our silicon reserves and producing solar panels so as to decrease CO2 emissions isn’t a business opportunity?

     Against a backdrop where the world has lost something like a quarter of its agricultural capacity and massive areas containing vital infrastructure are under water? (That’s putting aside any impacts from droughts and such like)

     More importantly, the height of the ice is not the amount that sea levels will rise so there’s a serious disconnect from what you’re saying here to what’s actually going to happen.

     Well, yes. Did I say the seas were going to rise by some kms?

     The reason I mention cities and towns, and the fact they would all disappear some km under the ice that’s going to be adding to sea levels, while not covering the area of that ice, is just my attempt to lend a sense of imaginable magnitude to what we’re faced with.
     • Matthew Whitehead 3.1.1

       6 May 2018 at 11:49 am

       Shaw is talking about the business opportunities in decarbonizing the economy, not in sea level rise, Bill, and it is missing the point to suggest that when his focus on sea levels is prevention of flooding where possible, either through more dramatic action on climate change or through flood walls, levies, etc…

       That probably won’t be able to save everything, but with smart planning and sufficient investment, we will be able to save critical areas such as agricultural land and existing cities that might be underwater if that 1m rise happened right now.

       I agree with you on all the rest of it though. This is very serious stuff, and it is frustrating that we aren’t talking about it enough. National’s approach on sea level rise was to stick its head in the sand. I hope we can expect better from the new government, but honestly I haven’t heard anything said in a ministerial capacity on this subject yet.
       • Bill 3.1.1.1

         6 May 2018 at 12:02 pm

         To quote Shaw, (from a public meeting I attended) he feels “pollyannish” about the future. And the business opportunity he sees is in NZ becoming world leaders in terms of land based emission reduction (ie, agriculture).

         Insofar as he diminishes (I could say “dismisses”) the importance of fuel related CO2 because NZ’s emissions mix is weighted towards agricultural emissions, he’s not much cop on the “decarbonising the economy” front.

         And on top of that, he’s of the opinion that we need to be preparing for 1m of sea level rise by 2100.

         Hell Matthew, he didn’t even know what an IAM was; that the 2 degrees ones incorporate negative emissions technologies and/or false peak dates; or that the models are subject to economic restraints.

         And this is our minister for climate change and co-leader of the Green Party?!
         • Pat 3.1.1.1.1

           6 May 2018 at 12:03 pm

           “Hell Matthew, he didn’t even know what an IAM was; that the 2 degrees ones incorporate negative emissions technologies and/or false peak dates; or that the models are subject to economic restraints.”

           Surely not?
           • Bill 3.1.1.1.1.1

             6 May 2018 at 12:13 pm

             Sadly and frighteningly, that’s absolutely true. I was gobsmacked.
           • Macro 3.1.1.1.1.2

             6 May 2018 at 4:57 pm

             Bill – I have been studying AGW and Climate change for over 30 years and sure as hell have never heard of any researcher referring to an IAM – so what exactly do you mean?
             https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAM
             from my count there are 21 different uses of the acronym.
             • Pat …

               6 May 2018 at 5:21 pm

               Anyone reading IPCC reports would be familiar with the acronym….integrated assessment model.

               There are also the other aspects Bill lists that he should be expected to be aware of…even if not in huge detail but at least the general thrust….one would expect that someone with Shaw’s background would source his information more widely than just MBIE…hell, if I know about it he certainly should.
               • Macro …

                 6 May 2018 at 7:09 pm

                 Ahh! I’m well aware of the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) of the IPPCs AR5 report which superseded the Emission Scenarios of the first 4 Reports.
                 I’m sure James is well aware of those as well.
                 • Bill …

                   6 May 2018 at 7:21 pm

                   The RCPs are underpinned by or built upon the conclusions of various and numerous IAMs.

                   All of those IAMs (the ones that result in anything under 2 degrees) rely on negative emissions technologies and false peak dates.

                   James was not aware of any of that.

                   He did not know what an integrated assessment model was (it was a one on one exchange) or the role they play in IPCC synthesis reports.
                   • Macro …

                     6 May 2018 at 8:08 pm

                     Well blow me down with a feather!
                     Here I am, having taught the Greenhouse Effect and AGW from the 1970’s, discussed the NZ’s Long Term Temperature records with Jim Salinger on a daily basis in the late 70’s early 80’s, submitted constantly to Parliament, Regional and Local Governments on the need for action on Climate Change, protested and constantly worked on projects aimed at reducing Carbon Emissions (Tree planting, soil sequestration, wetland development, etc), and take my Carbon footprint seriously, and never understood the vital role that IAMs now take (since AR5) in the development of the RCPs. (also introduced in AR5)
                     I’ve hosted James in my house, and have spoken to him on a number of occasions. If you think that just because he is unaware of the name of a modelling process used to develop a set of Emission Scenarios he is unfit to be our Climate Change Minister I think that that is a rather unfair hurdle. Perhaps you could name someone in the Cabinet more suited?
                     As to the prospect of exceeding 2 degrees, I am sure that there are many who are unaware of the simple fact that we are headed over 2 degrees. I agree, the COP 15 target of 1.5 degrees is hopelessly unrealistic, we are already at around 1 degree and were we to stop GHG emissions completely tomorrow the energy imbalance would still see us over the 1.5 mark. Just what we have handed onto our children and grandchildren as James Hansen indicated in the title of his book 10 years ago are storms, and more storms.
                     However to simply throw up our hands, and say it is all too difficult, is defeatism of the worst kind, and we owe it to all those who are to follow us, to do all in our power to mitigate and reduce the problems that they will inevitably have to face.
                   • Bill …

                     6 May 2018 at 10:02 pm

                     Knowing or not knowing the name of a modelling process, as you put it, is irrelevant.

                     Not knowing what current government policy is basing itself on, is.

                     And as Pat has re-iterated, that basis is compromised by political and economic factors – ie, it’s not scientific.

                     Is James Shaw alone in not knowing that? No. But he is the minister for climate change, and so arguably, he ought to.

                     As it stands, (and I’ve stated this time and again), government policies around AGW are woefully inadequate, and worse (much worse in my book), they offer up nothing but false hope.

                     You want the results of that to be what gets dished up to future generations? I don’t think you do, given your last para which I entirely agree with –

                     However to simply throw up our hands, and say it is all too difficult, is defeatism of the worst kind, and we owe it to all those who are to follow us, to do all in our power to mitigate and reduce the problems that they will inevitably have to face.
                 • Pat …

                   6 May 2018 at 8:30 pm

                   Im sure Bill can address whether you have interpreted his concern correctly…for myself I reiterate my surprise that James Shaw would appear unaware of the optimistic and political slanting of the IPPC reports (including AR5) as extensively outlined by someone as informed as Kevin Anderson…that dosnt necessarily mean he is not currently the best option as climate change Minister, he sure as hell is an improvement on the previous.
                   • Macro …

                     6 May 2018 at 9:10 pm

                     I accept that the IPCC Reports are “optimistic”. It is, after all, an InterGovernmental Panel that prepares this report and must accept input from a wide variety of sources so, in effect, there must be common agreement, or consensus on the findings.

                     The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

                     Furthermore these findings must be accepted by politicians world wide. So your opinion, or mine, or Bill’s, or James’, or even those of Jim Renwick, will be moderated by the AR5 and its subsequent reports. Whether we like it or not, that is the basis for all future planning wrt to CC.
                     (I note that the Labour Govt’s preferred option for the rebuild of Otago Hospital is in an area that under the current IPPC projections of SLR will be inundated before the end of the century! So much for planning.)
                     https://twitter.com/RichardOSeager/status/992155739027222528/photo/1?tfw_site=grenow&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fhot-topic.co.nz%2F
                   • Bill …

                     6 May 2018 at 10:11 pm

                     It’s the science (not “opinion”) that’s getting “moderated” by the IPCC process – ie, the science is being forced to fit in with economic and political expectations. (So, economically and politically palatable CO2 reduction rates are obtained by factoring in negative emissions tech and assuming peak dates that are (in some cases) unrealistic to the point of being set in the past.)

                     Think that through in terms of consequences and repercussions. The place it all leads to is not in any way, shape or form a good one.
                   • Pat …

                     6 May 2018 at 10:19 pm

                     yes the science is being moderated…as Kevin Anderson so clearly demonstrates, but theres none so blind as will not see.

                     Where it leads is obvious….and the journey somewhat less than pleasant.
                 • Pat …

                   6 May 2018 at 9:25 pm

                   “The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”

                   Laughable innit…if only they did. The terms ‘optimistic’ and ‘politically slanted’ were frankly polite and generous.
                   • Macro …

                     6 May 2018 at 9:30 pm

                     Well it’s the best we are going to get.
                     If the chump and Pruitt have anything to do with it, the next will be be a doozie.
             • Bill …

               6 May 2018 at 5:41 pm

               The Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) that underpin all Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) that the IPCC produces in its assessments/reports.
             • Poission …

               6 May 2018 at 5:57 pm

               IAM are well known as they link scientific models with social models such as economics.

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

               They are not without critics such as the legitimacy of the forecasts, under the guise of scientific rigor.

               https://academic.oup.com/reep/article-abstract/11/1/100/3066301?redirectedFrom=fulltext

               Groth and Ghil argue further constraints such as the use of equilibrium states in IAM.

               The introduction of Representative Concentration
               Pathways (RCPs)into the Fifth Assessment Re-
               port (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
               Change (IPCC)aimed to improve the exchange of in-
               formation among natural and social scientists. Although
               these RCPs expedite climate modeling in parallel with
               the development of socio-economic and emission scena-
               rios, the problems due to a lack of inclusion in the IPCC
               models of realistic feedbacks between the two systems —
               and to real communication between the research com-
               munities that study each of them separately persist.
               There are by now several truly coupled integrated as-
               sessment models (IAMs) but these IAMs disregard
               variability and represent both climate and the economy
               as a succession of equilibrium states with no endogenous
               dynamics.

               Our findings raise questions about the assessment of
               climate change that are based purely on long-term econo-
               mic growth models, and they emphasize the importance
               of endogenous dynamics in the interaction between na-
               tural climate and economic variability.

               https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Andreas_Groth/publication/319190526_Synchronization_of_world_economic_activity/links/599ac1a70f7e9b3edb198366/Synchronization-of-world-economic-activity.pdf

               .
               • Macro …

                 6 May 2018 at 7:14 pm

                 Yes – and I see the main exponents of the use of IAM’s are economists such as Lord Stern and Nordhaus.
       • cleangreen 3.1.1.2

         6 May 2018 at 1:49 pm

         Sorry folks;

         But the time has ‘come and gone’ already now to save our planet.

         As Bill has pointed out; – 410 ppm CO2 level is now placing us past the point of no return where “positive feedback” https://phys.org/news/2015-03-evidence-positive-feedback-climate.html now takes over sending climate change out of control.

         We are like fish in a bowl now.
     • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2

       6 May 2018 at 11:53 am

       Sea level will rise by about 20m if we stopped burning all fossil fuels today. It’s “locked in”. How fast it comes up, and how much more will be coming on top of that if we keep on as we are, is all that’s open to question.

       Yes.

       But that still doesn’t excuse us from not transitioning to a carbon-free economy.

       I have no idea what the situation is for domestic agriculture with 1m of sea level rise.

       1m does very little. It’s our cities that will be mostly affected by sea level rise because the largest are on low level land. Even 20m doesn’t take away a lot of NZs farmland.

       We do have to plan for it. I’m with you there but you seem to be saying that Shaw, and thus the Green Party, are unaware of this and that couldn’t be further from the truth.

       Did I say the seas were going to rise by some kms?

       It’s what’s implied by your analogy which is why it doesn’t work.
       • Bill 3.1.2.1

         6 May 2018 at 12:11 pm

         I have no idea why you linked to a 7m scenario for the UK. But anyway. Here’s a map showing the arable land in NZ where wheat, maize, oats and barley are grown. I’m not too hot on NZ topography, but there’s little point in looking at sea level rise if salination of groundwater by the horizontal migration of salt through the ground isn’t also taken into account.
         • Draco T Bastard 3.1.2.1.1

           6 May 2018 at 6:17 pm

           I have no idea why you linked to a 7m scenario for the UK.

           The site defaults to the UK. To see anywhere else you have to scroll to it. Scroll over to NZ and it will show which areas will be inundated as you increase the sea level rise.
4. humma 4

   6 May 2018 at 2:31 pm

   CO₂ is Plant Food.
   Learn it,
   Love it,
   Release it.

   Every cell in your body is held together with carbon plants have scavenged from the atmosphere.
   After all the hype and press about CO2 levels10 to 15 years ago …. 350, then 400 …. I’m surprised more people don’t call the alarmists on their claims. Have they have successfully steered the MSM into hyping normal weather events as “extreme” and the “new normal” or are people wise now?
   • In Vino 4.1

     6 May 2018 at 3:57 pm

     humma. your comment is compost food. Every synapse in your brain is tainted with denial and wishful thinking. By the time you realise how wrong you are, it will be even more too late than it already is. You think that a loving, all-wise God is looking over us?
     I suspect there is none, and that we as a species, clever as we are, are also quite short-sighted and greedy enough to destroy our own environment. Sorry, but it is quite conceivable. Heaps of our civilisations have done just that (deforestation leading to desert, etc), and now we are in the last stages of doing much the same to our entire planet.
     Your optimism is not refreshing – it is gobsmacking.
   • cleangreen 4.2

     6 May 2018 at 4:04 pm

     humma -troll attack here.

     Learn to grow gills you fish lover, and swim among them.

     You said fish food?

     Why are the fish stocks all dying globally now fool?

     Are you serious?

     The planet is imploding, and that is the best you can do?

     Fake media is all you are about here.

     No wonder we are entering a dark place with people like you spewing this rubbish out like vermin.

     Show the facts man! – if you want to be believed, as a global science will be weighted against your rubbish.

     https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/09/oceans-warming-global-environment-climate/

     National/Act supporter also are you?
     • alwyn 4.2.1

       6 May 2018 at 5:58 pm

       There must be two of you using the “cleangreen” penname.
       Here you are asking people to
       “Show the facts man!”
       Yet there seems to be a doppelganger who complains bitterly when I ask for evidence of claims.
       https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-06-05-2018/#comment-1481598
       How can we tell you apart?
       • Incognito 4.2.1.1

         6 May 2018 at 6:03 pm

         How can we tell you apart?

         Context is everything, Alwyn.
   • Bill 4.3

     6 May 2018 at 4:21 pm

     And heightened CO2 levels crap out plant physiology – which harms the health of anything subsisting on plants – which in turn harms the health of anything consuming them in turn.

     Whole post with links provided here.
   • Daveosaurus 4.4

     6 May 2018 at 5:30 pm

     Bullshit is also plant food, but I still don’t want it in my drinking water. Or in my scientific discourse.
   • Draco T Bastard 4.5

     6 May 2018 at 6:19 pm

     Ask the Experts: Does Rising CO2 Benefit Plants?

     Climate change’s negative effects on plants will likely outweigh any gains from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels

     Try actually learning something rather than believing the lies you hear from RWNJ sites which are supported by the people who directly benefit from fucking over the environment.
5. Timeforacupoftea 5

   6 May 2018 at 7:02 pm

   Higher CO2 means Pine Trees, Grass and Cabbages grow Faster.

   Go hard Dairy Farmers, Lawn mowers and Market Gardner’s we need you now and into the future to feed the worlds rocketing population.
   • Bill 5.1

     6 May 2018 at 7:08 pm

     Higher CO2 means Pine Trees, Grass and Cabbages…crap out.
6. Kevin 6

   6 May 2018 at 9:27 pm

   And what about the methane?
7. Pat 7

   6 May 2018 at 9:29 pm

   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIODRrnHQxg
8. Gosman 8

   7 May 2018 at 9:23 am

   What is the purpose of these sorts of articles on Climate change? Is it to let people know we are all doomed so to make peace with themselves or something else?
   • Pat 8.1

     7 May 2018 at 9:31 am

     Do you need to make peace with yourself Gosman?….the point is education…if you dont understand a problem how can you sensibly hope to address it?
     • Gosman 8.1.1

       7 May 2018 at 10:00 am

       I’m not sure I see how this post helps us address it though. It seems to be criticising James Shaw for suggesting that NZ has opportunities to promote successful climate change mitigation practices and goes on to highlight how terrible the loss of the land around river deltas will be. Where is the bit where it discussing addressing the challenges of climate change?
       • Pat 8.1.1.1

         7 May 2018 at 10:13 am

         Id suggest it is expressing concern that the CC Minister appears to be in the process of formulating policy on the basis of misinformation….rubbish in equals rubbish out….unless your unrealistically lucky.
       • DB Brown 8.1.1.2

         8 May 2018 at 7:52 am

         Agreed.

         Too much to and fro of information we mostly know. What can we actually do about it:

         Biodigestors on farms to: Reduce greenhouse gases, reduce pathogen loads, reduce vets bills, reduce fertiliser inputs, reduce power bills…

         I’ve heard the odd idiot try to say these don’t work. India has hundreds of thousands of working models if one wishes to learn.

         Aquaculture in farm drains: Nutrient surplus in the land will continue to leach into our waterways for decades. In the Waikato alone there exists thousands of miles of drain networks with this ‘free’ nutrient supply included. Simple floodgate systems over storm culverts could turn them into productive systems overnight. We then raise fish (eel, whatever else is approved) on food chains (microbes-algae-insects-fish), not ocean fish. The decrease in water-borne pollutants making their way to the oceans could be significant.

         On-site water storage. Nothing is more inane to me than listening to Farmers complain of drought when they have the capability to install a pond. It’s a hole in the ground fellas, dig downwards.

         Forestry forestry forestry. The short term gains of annual crops will get harder and harder to rely on as storm intensity/duration and frequency all increase. There are many useful marketable tree crops that produce food. monoculture is a recipe for disaster. Diversify like your life depends on it, as it does.

         As for rubbishing James based on the lack of knowledge of an acronym… Are we really so desperate to find fault we think this is evidence of incompetence?

         Straw clutching is what it is.
         • Pat 8.1.1.2.1

           8 May 2018 at 8:34 am

           Is a little more significant than not knowing an acronym….it is not apparently understanding that a doubling of the carbon budget has occured when presenting the 2 degree C target that we have signed up to.
   • Bill 8.2

     7 May 2018 at 10:19 am

     When you understand what a problem is, you can look for a solution. But if you’re being wrong-headed or mis-guided on what the problem is, you won’t find a solution.

     I’ve done many posts on the need to view AGW in terms of available carbon budgets and the need to begin deep cuts to our carbon emissions.

     Hell, I’ve done posts suggesting workable ways in which NZ (and by extension the world) can get to the required zero carbon from energy in the time we have left in terms of the available carbon budget.

     Meanwhile, you can make peace with yourself if you like. Why not?
9. greywarshark 9

   7 May 2018 at 9:35 am

   Jobs – NZ enterprise – we have to think about having lots of healthy businesses. Clothing – how are we going? Jobs in the climate changed world, the technology changed world, sustainability versus fast-fashion throwaways.

   Radionz:
   New Zealand’s largest textiles supplier is shutting it’s fashion division – which some local designers say will leave a huge hole in the industry. Charles Parsons will instead concentrate on the furniture fabrics. This news follows the announcement earlier this year that another company, Cooper Watkinson Textiles, is quitting the industry. This latest blow comes after several high profile local fashion labels have been forced to shut down – women’s label Andrea Moore, menswear brand Meccano and the shoe store, Minnie Cooper. Kathryn Ryan speaks to long time fashion industry advocate, Paul Blomfield, designer Abby van Shreven from label Maaike and industry veteran Carly Tolley.

   Business – being forced down and out by competitive expansion from overseas into NZ while at the same time the diminished sector of NZ brands expertise and innovative stuff is limited by not being able to buy large enough quantities of the raw materials, in this case clothing fabric, is being phased out. You have to perhaps get 10 metres minimum and find the money to buy it before it is worked on and onsold and paid for. But now sourcing those small amounts are hard, perhaps impossible.

   It’s hard to manufacture here, not much incentive. Small factories here have closed, machinery shipped offshore. Our business enterprises have had their throats slit, not literally because the system doesn’t have to be that blatant, but the result is the same.

   (And I note that arts are underfunded, financing, funding dropping out. For Gods sake, can we get anybody going into positions of power who will get behind NZ enterprise funded here, provide the skilled workers who can get jobs and the employers get help with financing short and long term, and help selling here and overseas.)

   An experienced woman in the interview says there is hope for us all. But ‘We have to box clever’ and think quickly, be light on our feet to move from one saleable thing to another. We have people who know the market. This is where the jobs and business is – making things for rich people and think KMart also. Think Pumpkin Patch story which is instructive.

   The Radionz interview ongoing. Is a must for those interested in a busy, happy-ish NZ, and the satisfaction of doing clever stuff and being paid for it, creating employment – all good. Will put up audio when available and I get back to computer.
   • Gosman 9.1

     7 May 2018 at 10:04 am

     “It’s hard to manufacture here, not much incentive. Small factories here have closed, machinery shipped offshore. Our business enterprises have had their throats slit, not literally because the system doesn’t have to be that blatant, but the result is the same.”

     And yet manufacturing seems to be going great guns

     https://tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/industrial-production
     • greywarshark 9.1.1

       7 May 2018 at 10:11 am

       http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018643763/nz-s-main-textiles-company-pulls-out-of-fashion

       Gosman
       Try to look closer at sectors and see who and how the figures apply to and let us know which. Sustainable business is another factor? Are they employing NZs and providing career opportunities in the sector at livable wages?

       Macroeconomics stats gives a comparison for year to year movement, but micro economics starts showing us how things are for the people locally and nationally of working age.
       • Gosman 9.1.1.1

         7 May 2018 at 10:20 am

         Your point is what?
         • greywarshark 9.1.1.1.1

           7 May 2018 at 1:09 pm

           gosman
           Ditto.
   • Rosemary McDonald 9.2

     7 May 2018 at 11:46 am

     I find it very difficult to take seriously the whining of fashion industry doyens. How many of us really give a tinker’s about the failure of high end fashion for want of reliability of supply of high end fabrics and availability of pattern makers and machinists.

     I gave up on that interview when one of the doyens made a joke of how she had to darken K Mart’s door to source cheap t-shirts for some arty project she had going.

     Gasped she did in awe at the near religious fervour of late night K Mart shoppers…

     I bet she never paused to think that these shoppers had just come off shift work to spend their minimum wage on what is actually not too bad quality stuff to make their lives more comfortable.

     And before she starts further bleating about wages and working conditions in the overseas factories producing this affordable stuff, she might want to engage with the Living Wage campaign here. Pay outworkers more and more workers might be able to afford your expensive frocks. That’s how the economy works.

     Art’s all well and good greywarshark, and when our economy has the spare cash to support it more that’s ok by me. But we don’t have the spare cash right now…

     Pathetic really, our national broadcaster giving so much air time to those seducing the $$$ from the rich and privileged.
     • Kevin 9.2.1

       7 May 2018 at 12:50 pm

       K-Mart is great for affordable, quality and stylish kids clothes.
       • greywarshark 9.2.1.1

         7 May 2018 at 1:10 pm

         Don’t miss the point Rosemary that sticks in my mind – for the reality of tomorrow (coming to a location near you). That is, because of the deadly interference in our economic system that allowed for a broad range of jobs sufficient for the people living and being born, in a wide variety of fields, we have lost the basis of a healthy society; working and trading with each other.

         Jobs have gone down to intermittent unskilled ones that are sneered at by those who have hoisted themselves to a higher level and have achieved good wages. Yet they are moaning because they are expected to pay a decent percentage of their earnings on tax for the advantage of having a job and a pay packet and a life while others are elbowed out of the queue.

         The rest of us do the best we can, which may be a bit up and down till we get to retirement age, which brings a pension, at the moment!! But all the country is noticing how things aren’t being provided by government and exclaiming excitedly about it. Yet this situation is what has been planned for by the mendacious financial and right wing wealth sector.

         Jobs where people make things, learn skills, can gouge out some of the wealthy’s hoarded money are GOOD. What are people going to do in the future when the bloody technological marvellous Newer Age takes over and becomes harder and more despotic on everyone.

         We have to develop local business, in NZ overall, in the regions of NZ, in the towns of nz, where we contribute something and get paid in local $, plus get some sort of pension from government which doesn’t really give a shit for the peeps, and that is neither of the main Parties. Never has the old typist’s practice sentence been more meaningful – ‘Now is the time to come to the aid of the party’. When we find a Party that gives a damn, and then gives a bit more along with a plan to support initiative and enterprise for domestic trading, stick to that Party.

         And don’t run down any enterprise, it is all useful in having people gain and keep skilled, making stuff to sell, keeping busy business going – making round or square things to go round. Keeping a living community busy and smiling. That’s the fashion to keep the good things about NZ going.

         Good on our national broadcaster for taking an interest and promoting NZ made. Now bloody go and buy something that has that ‘ NZ’ label as often as possible. I’m sick of lacklustre NZs who think everything will come right for us as long as they sit on the right side of the fence, criticise and sneer with deep wisdom watching while other people go on with their efforts to breathe life into this moribund country.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS