Climate change?

Written By: - Date published: 8:43 am, March 10th, 2025 - 101 comments
Categories: chris hipkins, climate change, Environment, labour, uncategorized, Unions - Tags:

Chris Hipkins has released his priorities should he be Prime Minister.

They are:

The next Labour Government will prioritise jobs, health and homes so Kiwis and Kiwi businesses have the opportunity to thrive.

  • Jobs – a fair economy with secure jobs that pay a decent wage
  • Health – a quality public health system supporting healthy communities.
  • Homes – a place to live and a great start for our kids

Notice anything missing? How about the most existential threat facing the planet?

Yes there is no mention of climate change.

In his recent state of the nation speech, delivered to the Auckland Chamber of Commerce, he mentions climate change only once. And that was in the context of job creation. Here is what he said:

Where the decisions we make about how to confront climate change make life better for people, lower their bills, and create new opportunities for well-paid work in communities everywhere.

He does not say the word “environment” once in that speech. And Unions were mentioned only when greeting union leaders and stating that a Labour Goverment would “work with people, with communities and businesses, experts and unions to achieve a clear set of shared goals”. 

To further cement the impression that climate change is a much less important consideration the portfolio has been moved from fourth ranked Megan Woods to 16th ranked Deborah Russell.

Hipkins timid tack to the centre approach mirrors that of UK Labour under Keir Starmer. In an MMP environment where people are looking for passion and leadership I am not sure this is the correct approach.

101 comments on “Climate change? ”

  1. Belladonna 1
    10 March 2025 at 8:52 am

    It may be pragmatic.

    Hipkins needs to swing votes from the centre (not cannibalize the left). There are few votes to be gained there, purely on climate friendly policies. The economy is the big deciding factor – and you'll note that the majority of his policies are economically focused. It's an address to businesspeople – so tailored to his audience.

    There is zero chance that Hipkins/Labour would win the election, without a coalition with the Greens – who have climate change/environment covered, thoroughly.

    However, it's a heads up to the GP, that they will need to emulate ACT and NZF in their negotiation style – and nail down the policy wins they want in writing during the coalition negotiations. Mr nice guy negotiation style has historically resulted in poor outcomes for the GP in government.

    Also, think of the audience – the Chamber of Commerce. The point of addressing them for Hipkins, is to position Labour as a party that business can work with in government. Of course he’s not going to emphasize any union-friendly policies.

    Reply
    • weka 1.1
      10 March 2025 at 9:37 am

      .

      Also, think of the audience – the Chamber of Commerce. The point of addressing them for Hipkins, is to position Labour as a party that business can work with in government. Of course he’s not going to emphasize any union-friendly policies.

      And thus cementing in the perception that Labour are centrists. Of course he should be talking to the business community about unions and working people, businesses are employers. Labour are meant to be the labour party. I'm not saying he should front up at the Chamber of Commerce and talking nationalisation and worker co-ops. But as the leader of the Labour Party, he should be talking about Labour plans for workers that also help businesses. If he doesn't (and I haven't read teh speech) he's telling businesses to carry on as usual, and many people will assume that Labour are going to carry on with the same incrementalist neoliberalism that has created poverty and left many workers in dire straights.

      Reply
    • weka 1.2
      10 March 2025 at 9:48 am

      There is zero chance that Hipkins/Labour would win the election, without a coalition with the Greens – who have climate change/environment covered, thoroughly.

      This is the only saving grace, that Labour quietly are relying on the Greens to pull the electorate and parliament greenwards. But it's an enormous thing to expect NZ citizens to take on faith. It's equally likely that Labour are now running denialist lines on climate and the Greens will have to fight Labour's drag to the centre.

      However, it's a heads up to the GP, that they will need to emulate ACT and NZF in their negotiation style – and nail down the policy wins they want in writing during the coalition negotiations. Mr nice guy negotiation style has historically resulted in poor outcomes for the GP in government.

      It doesn't work like that. For one, the Greens don't have the strategic positioning of a centre party like NZF that allows NZF to express their inner powermonger. For another, a lot of what the Greens achieve is through relationship. This means they make change in government departments and policy as much as legislatively.

      People tend to think politics is really transactional and all about “leverage”. It’s not – it’s relational. The quality of your relationships determines your ability to influence the outcome.

      – James Shaw

      https://businessdesk.co.nz/article/editors-picks/my-net-worth-james-shaw-mp

      The hard man bully boy approach used by NZF is a big part of why MMP is a mess and NZ is still lagging badly on climate (mitigation and adaptation). If the Greens gave up their core principles and worked like NZF (assuming this would even work given they will never work with National), it would fundamentally change the party and who they are and that would drag them towards the centre. On climate alone, this would be a huge mistake.

      Reply
      • Belladonna 1.2.1
        10 March 2025 at 12:06 pm

        ACT don't have a centrist platform, but have been extra-ordinarily successful in negotiating their platform in coalition talks.

        This is something that the GP needs to learn from – or they'll end up ignored and marginalized again (as they were in the 2017-2020 government).

        I've never suggested that they'd negotiate with National (you and others have made it clear that this is not on the cards) – but they need to negotiate hard with Labour.

        Nice-guys end last in politics.

        Reply
        • Tony Veitch 1.2.1.1
          10 March 2025 at 12:55 pm

          Unless you've got someone as weak as dishwater to negotiate with!

          Then you can get whatever you want, without even making it a bottom line!

          Reply
          • Belladonna 1.2.1.1.1
            10 March 2025 at 1:52 pm

            Maybe. However, Winston has been able to successfully negotiate with Ardern, as well as with Luxon.

            I just think that this is something that the GP really struggle with.

            Reply
        • weka 1.2.1.2
          10 March 2025 at 2:16 pm

          This is something that the GP needs to learn from – or they'll end up ignored and marginalized again (as they were in the 2017-2020 government).

          What makes you think they don't negotiate hard with Labour? I've heard the argument that they don't get many concessions therefore they're not good negotiators, but this is a nonsense. In 2017 they had major fall out from Turei's speech and Shaw has said they were grateful just to make it back into parliament.

          In 2020, Labour didn't need them to form government, so there's not a lot of negotiation power there.

          They still got policy progressed. "ignored and marginalised" is a perception issue.

          ACT don't have a centrist platform, but have been extra-ordinarily successful in negotiating their platform in coalition talks.

          Maybe consider that National are happy with this because ACT get to progress policy that Nat wants but can't pursue openly? And again, Nat needed ACT to form government, of course they had the power to negotiate for what they want.

          Maybe. However, Winston has been able to successfully negotiate with Ardern, as well as with Luxon.

          For the third time, NZF can play both sides. The Greens are in a completely different position.

          Reply
          • Belladonna 1.2.1.2.1
            10 March 2025 at 2:57 pm

            For the second time, ACT can't play both sides, but they appear to be significantly more successful than the GP in progressing their agenda.

            In 2017, Labour needed both NZF and GP to get into government. NZF exacted significant policy concessions, the GP did not.

            Reply
            • weka 1.2.1.2.1.1
              10 March 2025 at 3:23 pm

              ACT are in a coalition government that wouldn't exist without them.

              Labour also couldn't form government in 2017 without the Greens but the Greens had a massive setback form the fallout from the Turei speech.

              NZF had more seats than them, and the advantage of being able to choose between Labour and National. Of course Labour were going to prioritise NZF and NZF actively sidelined the Greens. It's not like the Greens were going to sit on the cross benches and let Nat form government.

              Please explain how you think the Greens could have negotiated harder and gotten more concessions in 2017. With examples and reference to the various agreements.

              Meanwhile, Labour ruled out NZF in 2023 ahead of the election, which left NZF with less power in negotiating with Nat, and thus ACT had more power. And afaik NZF weren't gunning for ACT like they had with the Greens (for obvious tactical reasons).

              Reply
              • Belladonna …
                11 March 2025 at 10:34 am

                GP got virtually nothing from Ardern in 2017.
                Not even in the government (which with NZF wasn't on the cards).
                The GP negotiation style was clearly around partnership and shared goals – whereas NZF was around specific policy targets (both more achievable and better press)

                “The Green Party’s agreement with Labour is built on shared values and principles,” Green Party Co-leader James Shaw said.

                “It’s clear to me that this will be a truly transformational Government for Aotearoa New Zealand.

                “The way this Government chooses to measure success will define what its priorities are. By writing a commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals into our agreement with Labour, we’re committing to an ambitious approach to economic development, social wellbeing, and ecological sustainability.

                https://www.greens.org.nz/greens_sign_agreement_to_govern_based_on_shared_values

                In retrospect, the 2017 government was not transformational, and the Labour-led government wasn't anything like as committed to sustainable development goals as the GP. Shared goals only work if you actually share the goal.

                Negotiating for specific policies with delivery targets is much more likely to both succeed (and be perceived as succeeding) than wording around 'investigate' or 'request' or even, 'work will begin on'

                example from the actual agreement

                Request the Climate Commission to plan the transition to 100% renewable electricity by
                2035 (which includes geothermal) in a normal hydrological year.
                a. Solar panels on schools will be investigated as part of this goal.

                https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/beachheroes/pages/9825/attachments/original/1579134506/NZLP___GP_C_S_Agreement_.pdf?1579134506

                If solar power for schools is a key deliverable (and it's the only one listed under this heading). Then something like. "Solar panels on schools will be funded and implemented at 10% of schools a year over 10 years. Funding for this will come from X agency, and will be over and above school operational or capital funding. Schools in remote areas, with challenging electrical supply, or in lower decile areas, will be prioritized for inclusion in early delivery funding rounds."

                Reply
                • Phillip ure …
                  11 March 2025 at 9:39 pm

                  Agree with the solar panels on schools idea..

                  ..it is a total no-brainer..

                  Reply
                • weka …
                  11 March 2025 at 10:02 pm

                  ffs, James Shaw was the Minister for Climate Change in 2017 (as well as Stats and Associate Minister of Finance).

                  If you want to run the line that policy gains in the coalition agreement are the only valid type of gains, have at it. But it's simply not true to say that the GP didn't making any gains. Have a Minister means they get influence policy and culture within that Ministry, which is what they did.

                  If on the other hand you want to say that the Greens could improve their lot by negotiating differently in coalition talks, then please explain how. (and without reference to NZF). You may be right, but the whole 'the Greens should harden up' argument is self serving, rather than explanatory in real terms.

                  I'd also like to see some evidence that the Greens had control over the agreement in the say you are suggesting they should. And then an explanation for why there were all these things they could have gotten but didn't through their own fault.

                  The reason I'm tetchy about this is years of people expecting the Greens to have a magic wand that overcomes the reality of being a left of Labour party but no-one ever explains how they could get all these things other than vaguecommenting about doing better.

                  Reply
                  • weka …
                    11 March 2025 at 10:03 pm

                    and I'm not saying they are without fault, I don't think that's true at all. It's just hard to take an argument seriously that starts with the Greens got nothing, when they got their first Ministers including Climate.

                    Reply
            • gsays 1.2.1.2.1.2
              10 March 2025 at 7:09 pm

              Gotta point out that Act's performance this cycle compared to Greens a la Ardern era Labour is apples and oranges.

              Down to the fact of Luxon. Craven desire for power, piss poor negotiator, the vacuum in leadership his presence creates and National getting their runs early ( tax cuts and landlording fellatio) leaving space for Seymour et al and their divisive, anti worker Dickensian progroms.

              Reply
  2. Ad 2
    10 March 2025 at 9:41 am

    Straight after Ardern left, Hipkins trashed every green initiative we had going.

    So it's not like we weren't warned.

    Find me something that distinguishes Labour from New Zealand First.

    Reply
    • weka 2.1
      10 March 2025 at 9:49 am

      they're not populist, proto-fascist bullies?

      Reply
    • Phillip ure 2.2
      10 March 2025 at 12:16 pm

      That's why..for any hope of any credibility…

      ..labour have to jettison hipkins…

      Reply
      • thinker 2.2.1
        10 March 2025 at 5:19 pm

        Philip, did you write this before the TWO polls came out today that would have Hipkins leading the left to victory over a 1 term National government, for the first time in history, if an election happened today?

        Reply
    • thinker 2.3
      10 March 2025 at 5:15 pm
      1. They don't mind Mexicans who are NZ Citizens
      1. They support the treaty principles
      2. They don't support mining on conservation land
      3. They support climate change policies
      Reply
      • Phillip ure 2.3.1
        10 March 2025 at 6:38 pm

        Yet another incrementalist labour led govt will fix nothing .except getting rid of the current clown-cart….

        Which is why the promised policies have to be incrementalism-free…

        And hipkins is an incrementalist to his very core….

        ..and his trashing of any good policies is just the icing on his unsuitability cake…

        Reply
  3. kejo 3
    10 March 2025 at 9:44 am

    And that timid approach is why i gave up on Labour long ago

    Reply
  4. georgecom 4
    10 March 2025 at 9:47 am

    so clear message is ensure the Green get a good solid % of the party vote so Climate Change is front and centre in any new government. As last time where the greens did some solid work on the issue and labour 'enabled' that. we need a labour led government to allow the greens to progress CC policies

    Reply
    • Bearded Git 4.1
      11 March 2025 at 6:19 am

      Yep George….Lab 26 Gr 18 TPM 6 would mean Hipkins would have to grow some cohones and support a Wealth Tax that paid for some serious climate friendly things as well as properly funding the health service.

      Reply
  5. weka 5
    10 March 2025 at 9:51 am

    this is so depressing. Even if it is a secret ploy to let the Greens lead on this, it's still a fail. We need all the left of centre parties on board with a vision of climate transition that improves the lives and futures of NZ citizens. Without the major government partner being part of that, it tells the electorate that the climate crisis is a nice to have, fringe issue.

    Reply
  6. PsyclingLeft.Always 6
    10 March 2025 at 10:04 am

    To further cement the impression that climate change is a much less important consideration the portfolio has been moved from fourth ranked Megan Woods to 16th ranked Deborah Russell.

    Aye MS. Environment is an essential part…of anything NZ.

    Nothing I am seeing from Hipkins is drawing me to especially vote for them.

    NAct1 are intrinsically toxic.

    While Labour is but Curates egg good. They need to show me and others,( ie not the 1%ers) reasons to vote for them !

    I look at this…and see nothing for me, and many hundreds of thousands of voters. Where are you Labour ? Who are you ? What do you stand for ?

    Hipkins gave an assurance a Labour government, under his watch, wouldn't spend its "first year back in government pausing, cancelling, and reviewing everything".

    "Just because the current government started something, we aren't just going to stop it because it was their idea not ours. If it's working, we will keep moving forward.

    "No more throwing the baby out with the bathwater just to make a political point," he said to plenty of nods in the audience of roughly 200 people.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/544135/chris-hipkins-promises-political-bipartisanship-chris-bishop-isn-t-so-convinced

    Reply
  7. Anne 7
    10 March 2025 at 10:31 am

    Agree with Belladonna. @ 1.

    It's a pragmatic list of 'priorities'.

    It doesn't follow other important issues like Climate Change are going to be neglected. This list is just about what is front and centre on most people's minds when it comes to their voting decisions and Labour knows it.

    Reply
    • weka 7.1
      10 March 2025 at 11:10 am

      here's the problem though. The climate crisis is already here, but it's hard for people to parse that cognitively because it's such a large scale issue. If progressive political parties don't make climate central in all other policy and lead on a story of transition, we are just tinkering around the edges. And that's a death sentence. NZ won't be able to mitigate around catastrophic climate change, and civilised society will collapse. You and I are probably old enough to be dead by the time that happens, but maybe not. But it's a terrible future to leave to younger people.

      What Labour are doing is kicking the can down the road, which is what's been happening for a long time. People made the same arguments during the pandemic, and here we are five years later. The window where we still have good choices is rapidly shrinking.

      Reply
  8. Michael Scott 8
    10 March 2025 at 11:36 am

    Weka I think you are correct -The climate crisis is already here, but it's hard for people to parse that cognitively because it's such a large scale issue

    Many people like me believe climate change is an existential threat.

    But we also know that nothing New Zealand does in terms of reducing our carbon footprint will make any measurable difference to either our climate or the world’s.

    Until the snow melts and prevents my Treble Cone trips or the sea rises and I lose my bach it won't be a front and centre issue for me as it is with you.

    Reply
    • weka 8.1
      10 March 2025 at 11:47 am

      how does that work? You're ok with the collapse of civ and the environment so long as you can keep skiing in the meantime?

      Reply
      • Michael Scott 8.1.1
        10 March 2025 at 12:10 pm

        I know. It's pathetic. But I love my life and realise many of my activities and purchases are from the very companies complicit in destroying the planet.

        Winter trips to Wanaka are a highlight of my year and I know that if we all just stopped supporting the fossil fuel companies and the tech companies and the airlines those businesses would fold.

        But we can't. And until the sea level rises or something I don't think it will assume the level of urgency for me that it has for you.

        Reply
        • Tony Veitch 8.1.1.1
          10 March 2025 at 12:59 pm

          As someone wrote: at first, climate catastrophes are far away, in another country.

          Then they occur in your own country, but far away from where you live.

          Next, they're in the next county and you can see the effects.

          Then you're filming them.

          And, I suspect, until that last happens, we'll remain blissfully blind to what is really happening.

          Reply
        • weka 8.1.1.2
          10 March 2025 at 2:20 pm

          Your position on this is a form of climate denial. You didn't actually answer my question about collapse and how you live in response to that. And to go back to what you said earlier,

          But we also know that nothing New Zealand does in terms of reducing our carbon footprint will make any measurable difference to either our climate or the world’s.

          This is patently wrong and has been explained many times by many people. All the small countries add up to around 1/3 of global GHG emissions. The small countries matter as much as the big ones. You are running RW climate denialist lines (I see them from overt RW climate denialists all the time). It's a get out of jail free card. So sure, keep prioritising skiing over saving life, but meanwhile, most people in NZ want more done about climate than we are doing. Which is why we need Labour to lead.

          Reply
          • Michael Scott 8.1.1.2.1
            10 March 2025 at 3:16 pm

            Yes Weka it is a form of climate denial. I know what I should do and often I do the very opposite.

            As I said I love going to my bach with friends and family and I keep doing it even though it is a 3 hour drive. I love my phone and laptop and storing my data in the cloud even though I have learned that data centres emit more Co2 than airlines.

            It's a bit like my Christian life. I want to be Christlike but so often choose a wrong way.

            In terms of whether our individual or govt actions have any saving influence my thought is that without China, India and the US being onboard we are doomed if the current science is correct… but I hold out hope as i know the science is never settled.

            Reply
            • weka 8.1.1.2.1.1
              10 March 2025 at 3:26 pm

              In terms of whether our individual or govt actions have any saving influence my thought is that without China, India and the US being onboard we are doomed if the current science is correct… but I hold out hope as i know the science is never settled.

              If small countries like NZ won't change, why should China, India or the US? If the top three change and the rest don't, it's still a big problem.

              Again, NZ won't be able to adapt to climate collapse. So everything we do matters a great deal. At least you are honest about your denial I guess.

              Reply
    • powerman 8.2
      10 March 2025 at 4:55 pm

      Michael Scott you have summed up the hypocritical, self-centered and entitled responses of so many to climate change.

      Reply
      • Michael Scott 8.2.1
        10 March 2025 at 7:43 pm

        Mea culpa Powerman. I don't want to be self centred , hypocritical and entitled. I just want to live my version of a good life.

        I want to take my grandchildren out in my boat and teach them to fish and have them experience the wonders of the ocean. To travel with my wife to be with dear friends in Cuba every few years as they are unable to come to NZ.

        I totally get that if we stopped using bad stuff there would be no demand so supply would cease. But it is like we're all on a wheel within a complicated machine and it is not within our power to push stop.

        Reply
        • Phillip ure 8.2.1.1
          11 March 2025 at 8:54 am

          A good question to ask those chastising you for going skiing..on environmental grounds..is:

          'do you still eat animals?'

          Reply
  9. Phillip ure 9
    10 March 2025 at 12:28 pm

    Perhaps an appropriate time to point out that one of the most effective actions to counter climate change that can be done by the individual..

    Is to stop eating other species..and their bye-products….

    ..a cynic viewing handwringing about climate…while the wringer is eating the end product of the animal extraction industries…a large part/cause of our problems..both now..but especially into the future…

    ..a cynic viewing wringing in that context could be forgiven for going 'meh..!'.…

    ..eh..?

    Reply
    • Belladonna 9.1
      10 March 2025 at 3:00 pm

      Considerably more effective to refuse to purchase anything imported from overseas. Plenty of vegans/vegetarians contribute massively to global warming by their food choices. Almond milk, for example.

      Reply
      • mikesh 9.1.1
        10 March 2025 at 4:58 pm

        Considerably more effective to refuse to purchase anything imported from overseas.

        This is right. Naomi Kline in This Changes Everything pointed that shipping and glaobalisation contribute enormously to CO2 emission. And WTO rules don't help since they often prevent countries from localising their economies.

        Reply
      • Phillip ure 9.1.2
        10 March 2025 at 7:09 pm

        Personally..I don't use almond milk 'cos of it's very large environmental footprint…

        But..your point is..?…vegans buy imported stuff..?…and..?.. that's why you shouldn't be a vegan..?.. it's hard to see what you are trying to say.. except to deny the undeniable…

        And I see your travel emissions..and raise you the poisoning of our country..and the giving of cancer to many…the animal extraction industries…

        Reply
        • Belladonna 9.1.2.1
          11 March 2025 at 8:53 am

          Gosh, are you now claiming that vegans don't get cancer.
          I know that balance isn't a significant factor in your perspective on this issue….

          And, yes, eating locally is better for the planet than high-environmental-impact vegan produce imported from the other side of the world.

          Reply
          • Phillip ure 9.1.2.1.1
            11 March 2025 at 8:57 am

            Are you denying that red meat…and especially processed meat..cause cancer..?

            And please don't put words into my mouth…

            ..where did I say that vegans don't get cancer..?

            Reply
            • Belladonna 9.1.2.1.1.1
              11 March 2025 at 9:18 am

              Zero evidence that eating meat and other animal products in the context of a healthy balanced diet gives people cancer. Indeed the recommendations from the World Cancer Research Fund are around avoiding highly processed food, especially that high in sugar and starch (which can be vegetarian or vegan), rather than meat.

              https://www.wcrf.org/preventing-cancer/topics/vegetarian-and-vegan-diets-and-cancer/page/47/

              Your statement that "and the giving of cancer to many…the animal extraction industries…" implies the logical alternative that in your opinion vegans don't get cancer.

              Reply
              • Phillip ure …
                11 March 2025 at 10:22 am

                You are now denying the sun rises in the morning…

                ..so ..no point in further dialogue with you…

                Reply
                • Belladonna …
                  11 March 2025 at 10:42 am

                  Gosh, confronted with actual facts you retreat.
                  Shows the quality of your debate.

                  Reply
                  • Incognito …
                    11 March 2025 at 10:52 am

                    Do smoking and air pollution cause cancer?

                    Reply
                    • Belladonna …
                      11 March 2025 at 11:01 am

                      Smoking what? Tobacco exposure can cause cancer.
                      Aficionados of smoking other substances appear to believe that smoking them is entirely benign.

                      Air pollution can trigger lung cancer – but protects against skin cancer.

                      https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jdv.20539

                      The claim that a vegan diet is, on it's own, a protection against cancer is highly dubious. Healthy eating (as in low processed foods, without excessive sugar or carbohydrates, in a sensible balanced diet) is recognized (as per the earlier link) as being protective against cancer. A vegan diet doesn't necessarily comply with this – many 'meat replacement' foods are highly processed, and other 'acceptable' foods are heavily sweetened.

                      All of which is beside the point that I initially made, that eating locally is better for the planet than a highly-intensive farmed, imported, vegan diet.

                    • Phillip ure []
                      11 March 2025 at 11:11 am

                      Please stop putting words into my mouth..

                      I said red meat (especially processed..ham..bacon etc etc cause cancer..

                      I did not say that being vegan protects you from cancer…

                    • Incognito []
                      11 March 2025 at 11:14 am

                      Sigh 🙁

                      You’re making work again for others and me because you don’t (want to) see the logical flaws, incorrect facts, and rhetorical tricks in and of your own comments.

                      I’ll park this for now – as usual, it has little to do with the OP but everything with your commenting & debating behaviour here and there’s always a small chance that you’ll come to your senses and engage your brain, so technically, I should put it in a Mod note for you …

                • Belladonna …
                  11 March 2025 at 11:21 am

                  Did you read the subsequent link – from the Cancer Research foundation?

                  Highly processed foods, both meat based and vegetarian/vegan are cancer risks.

                  Your subsequent statement "Are you denying that red meat…and especially processed meat..cause cancer..?" (which triggered the above link) – doesn't negate your earlier one "and the giving of cancer to many…the animal extraction industries…"

                  Yes, highly processed meat products are a cancer risk, as are highly processed vegetarian/vegan products, as are high sugar and/or carbohydrate products, whether vegan/vegetarian or omnivore.

                  Your claim that "the animal extraction industries give cancer to many, might just as well be "the vegan high-processed food industry gives cancer to many"

                  Reply
        • weka 9.1.2.2
          11 March 2025 at 9:36 am

          But..your point is..?…vegans buy imported stuff..?…and..?.. that's why you shouldn't be a vegan..?..

          No, it's that politicised vegans like yourself, arguing for veganism as a response to the climate/ecological crisis and animal welfare, should also be arguing very strongly for relocalisation of food. I just don't see many vegan advocates doing that.

          Reply
          • Phillip ure 9.1.2.2.1
            11 March 2025 at 10:18 am

            I would point out that leaving other species alone is not just a 'response' to climate change..

            ..but is a cure…

            ..and I would assume that localism is part of the suite of practices of most vegans ..

            The really- good vegans I know (I am not one of them)..they grow what they eat..

            And as far as the supermarkets are concerned…I am encouraged by the upsurge in locally made offerings there ..

            Reply
            • Phillip ure 9.1.2.2.1.1
              11 March 2025 at 10:31 am

              And the reasons green carnivores so studiously ignore that cure/solution are…?

              Reply
              • weka …
                11 March 2025 at 11:25 am

                don't actually know that many green carnivores tbh. Most of the carnivore diet people I know are doing it for health reasons and not particularly thinking about localism or the environment.

                Reply
            • Belladonna 9.1.2.2.1.2
              11 March 2025 at 11:07 am

              The post is about climate change. Your moral beliefs about animal products are irrelevant, here.

              If you believe that localism is a major part of vegan diets, then you must not be acquainted with many vegans in large cities. Virtually all of the promoted vegan alternatives in the supermarkets (which must be selling, or they wouldn't be still on the shelves), are both highly processed and imported.

              https://www.woolworths.co.nz/shop/searchproducts?search=vegan

              Reply
            • weka 9.1.2.2.1.3
              11 March 2025 at 11:19 am

              ..and I would assume that localism is part of the suite of practices of most vegans ..

              and you would be wrong. Yes there are some vegans who grow a lot of their own food, but most don't. If you want to convert the world to veganism and you don't have a plan for relocalisation you are just swapping one set of ecocidal industrial farming for another. You know this already, it's why you don't eat almonds.

              Let me demonstrate in images…

              Reply
    • Drowsy M. Kram 9.2
      11 March 2025 at 3:27 pm

      Growing Evidence Suggests Plant-Based Diets Reduce Cancer Risk
      [16 Jan 2025]
      As the evidence accumulates, it increasingly points to one over-arching theme: more plants, less cancer.

      https://plantbasedhealthprofessionals.com/the-top-science-papers-of-2024-supporting-plant-based-nutrition

      Admire your commitment Phillip. I'm reluctant to stop meating meat altogether (it tastes sooo good), possibly because I was raised on '7 meat meals a week', including the lovely Sunday roast with happy memories of eating as an extended family.

      So imagine my surprise when I discovered how easy it was to decrease the amount of meat I eat, and it's possible that predominantly plant-based diets have other (planetary health) benefits. If you have the space and climate, grow blueberries and feijoas!

      Food is Medicine Interventions and Climate Change [26 Aug 2024]

      Reply
  10. Macro 10
    10 March 2025 at 12:33 pm

    Meanwhile…

    Chris Hipkins overtakes Christopher Luxon as preferred prime minister in Taxpayers' Union-Curia poll

    The poll, conducted between 2-4 March, showed National up 1.7 points to 33.6 percent, and Labour up 2.8 points to 34.1 percent.

    The Greens dropped 3.2 points to 10 percent, while ACT declined 2.3 points to 7.7 percent.

    New Zealand First was down 1.3 points to 5.1 percent, while Te Pāti Māori was up 2.1 points to 6.5 percent.

    On these numbers, the centre-right block would not be able to form a government.

    And for the first time since the election, Hipkins was ahead of Luxon as preferred prime minister in this poll.

    Luxon dropped slightly to 20.3 percent, while Hipkins rose 3.1 points to 20.7 percent.

    Reply
    • Ad 10.1
      10 March 2025 at 1:06 pm

      On that reading I'm on the left of Labour.

      In the words of the prophet Springsteen;

      At the end of every hard-earned day people find some reason to believe.

      Reply
      • Macro 10.1.1
        10 March 2025 at 1:26 pm

        Well I am too – lets hope the MNZGA* crowd continue their drop into obscurity, and WP can then spend his remaining days as an diplo dipso far away.

        Reply
    • weka 10.2
      10 March 2025 at 2:21 pm

      that's about Luxon's performance not Hipkins'

      Reply
  11. Kat 11
    10 March 2025 at 12:33 pm

    I doubt people are suddenly not going to vote….or suddenly going to decide to vote for Labour just because Chippy hasn't mentioned climate change or the environment.

    What will….in my opinion…..cause people to vote for Labour is if Chippy mentions reinstating a 21st century reincarnation of the Ministry of Works…….we can only live in hope…..

    Reply
    • Ad 11.1
      10 March 2025 at 2:09 pm

      You've forgotten that 10% of the country marched in 2017, strengthening Shaw and Ardern.

      That hasn't gone away.

      Whereas impatience with big nationalist entities like ACC, Whatu Ora, Kainga Ora, NZTA etc is growing massively.

      0 people will vote for ever more massive bureaucracy.

      Reply
      • weka 11.1.1
        10 March 2025 at 2:40 pm

        what are people upset with NZTA about?

        Reply
        • Ad 11.1.1.1
          10 March 2025 at 5:32 pm

          You're kidding

          Reply
          • weka 11.1.1.1.1
            10 March 2025 at 6:21 pm

            no, I was hoping you could enlighten me. The others I am familiar with.

            Reply
            • Phillip ure 11.1.1.1.1.1
              10 March 2025 at 7:11 pm

              Potholes..?..cones..?

              Does that cover it..?

              Reply
            • Ad 11.1.1.1.1.2
              11 March 2025 at 9:50 am

              Public transport ticketing and pricing always going up, zero regard for climate mitigation, massive and sustained infrastructure failure across country, weak safety regulation and consistently high injury and death, rapidly declining infrastructure including potholes, zero planning with rail or housing entities, massively increased powers to take land without recourse to the courts, and of course being mostly self-funding through RUC pretty much a law unto themselves …etc etc.

              Reply
    • dpalenski 11.2
      10 March 2025 at 5:28 pm

      That's GA commenter brain worms to think creating a new agency will get lots of votes. Be lucky if talking about an NZUP 2.0 program that this agency might oversee would get many votes.

      Reply
  12. Kat 12
    10 March 2025 at 5:24 pm

    I would not consider a well managed well run MoW to be a massive bureaucracy especially with regards critical infrastructure……that is the neoliberal mantra that govt shouldn't be in the business of the business of hands on running of services……currently we have a cluster of private organisations, accountable mainly to their shareholders, tasked with building and maintaining critical infrastructure……..that's why we have roads full of potholes and pylons that are left to fall over……..at least with a govt run department there is a govt minister directly accountable…..that is how this country was built……however I agree with you with regards ACC which in my view is a con…..set up to sell off to the private health sector……..

    I believe you would be surprised how many many votes a well presented case for a MoW would attract…….

    Reply
    • Kat 12.1
      10 March 2025 at 5:27 pm

      Opps….that was meant to be a reply to Ad…….

      Reply
    • Ad 12.2
      10 March 2025 at 5:35 pm

      Imagine a full MoW with the kind of land acquisition powers and RMA powers that the government is about to give to NZTA.

      Don't even wish for it.

      Reply
      • Kat 12.2.1
        10 March 2025 at 8:48 pm

        Imagine a full MoW with a structure that actually operated for the benefit of all the people and was ultimately accountable to the citizens of this country……any govt that monkeyed around with its stated objectives would suffer electoral consequences…….

        Reply
        • Ad 12.2.1.1
          11 March 2025 at 9:46 am

          You sound like you've never dealt with NZTA, Kainga Ora, ACC, or the old MoW or the old Electricity Corporation before.

          Reply
          • Kat 12.2.1.1.1
            11 March 2025 at 2:35 pm

            You may be surprised, my first vote was for Labour back in 1972, Norm Kirk was our last PM that you could call a tradesman who previously worked with his hands…..the Mow was regarded as most efficient manner from the point of view of the national interest with a dedicated cabinet minister responsible……….all we have achieved in dismantling the MoW that oversaw critical infrastructure is a cluster of organisations operating under the guise of private enterprise that are required to compete for govt contracts……the resultant seemingly never ending outsourcing and funding process is arguably just another form of bureaucracy……..

            Reply
            • Ad 12.2.1.1.1.1
              11 March 2025 at 3:00 pm

              Not in the least surprised that the world felt easier and simpler in the early1970s … every telephone was state owned, the state directly controlled about 30% of the economy through either corporations or state entities, generating a transport system that was mediocre to start with and full domination of us all by motorways and oil and petrol, and of course propped up with untested Family Benefit, untested Superannuation, milk in schools, every farmer was subsidised, every export market took as much as we could make (barring wool), massive union membership supported with compulsory employer bargaining …a society as completely cushioned from the world as it could be …

              … which nevertheless generated sustained racism, repression of women, sustained property theft in the form of land acquisition, massive desecration of vast landscapes in the form of dams and forest clearance and swamp clearing, industrial-scale poisoning of rivers from state-directed development, really low class mobility to anything beyond a dull egalitarianism, complete non-preparedness for international shocks, massive moral conformity, really low entrepeneurship, really low innovation, and a deeper and deeper path dependency towards producing a very narrow range of goods and services …

              … leading to a sustained recession from the mid 1970s right through to Lange (who in some ways made it worse and in others better)….

              But sure blame it on the contracting system for the teams on the diggers.

              Reply
              • Kat …
                11 March 2025 at 5:47 pm

                "But sure blame it on the contracting system for the teams on the diggers……………….

                That's some tangent you have gone on off on……my only mention was a MoW as a management structure for critical infrastructure….nothing else……but if you adhere to the practice of throwing the baby out with the bath water……..and it makes you feel better venting about how bad life was in the 1970's……"sustained racism, repression of women"….!!…well, I won't be joining you down that rabbit hole……..

                Reply
              • KJT …
                12 March 2025 at 7:43 am

                Like the Present and the Douglas and Richardson Governments.

                Totally wrong in both your diagnosis, and the "cure".

                There is a reason why our worst deficits, apart from COVID, was 1991, and now.

                No point in arguing with someone who thinks egalitarianism is a bad thing. Or that the 70’s in NZ were not innovative.
                That is when all our most successful industries, the ones that are not dependant on buying Government utilities or trading in existing assets, started!

                Reply
    • gsays 12.3
      10 March 2025 at 7:21 pm

      Yep, I'd vote for that, but then I don't have a vested interest in the status quo.

      Start with solar panel installations in all schools. Increase capacity to build solar farms.

      Apparently we need a couple of ports to handle ferries for the next few generations. What a kick start to the economy.

      Someone could be employed as a door opener to let Black Rock out of the country.

      That $590M profit that Fulton Higan made would stay with us.

      Reply
  13. PsyclingLeft.Always 13
    11 March 2025 at 7:57 am

    Climate change : Out of sight…. out of mind? But consequences will be visible..

    NZ’s glaciers have already lost nearly a third of their ice – as more vanishes, landscapes and lives change

    New Zealand ranks third globally in the proportion of ice lost from glaciers. Almost 30 percent of ice volume has melted during the past 24 years and what remains is disappearing at an accelerating pace, according to a recent global assessment.

    Almost 300 glaciers have now vanished completely from New Zealand's mountains.

    And its damage is cumulative….ever increasingly. Including on economies !!

    As warming temperatures melt glaciers, the ice loss has repercussions for climate and water cycles. This in turn has significant impacts on landscapes, rivers, ecosystems and, ultimately, people and economies.

    Its not just the economy, stupid !!

    The science of glacier loss is clear: in a warming world, less snow will be retained and more ice will melt. This is why the United Nations has designated 2025 the International Year of Glaciers' Preservation and March 21 as the World Day for Glaciers.

    The only way to sustainably arrest the current global retreat of glacial ice is to tackle the root cause: global heating. Achieving this requires international coordination to move energy generation away from fossil fuels quickly.

    Failing this, we may soon only remember our glaciers from stories, paintings and photographs.

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/544301/nz-s-glaciers-have-already-lost-nearly-a-third-of-their-ice-as-more-vanishes-landscapes-and-lives-change

    Reply

Leave a Comment