Daily review 26/02/2020

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, February 26th, 2020 - 67 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

67 comments on “Daily review 26/02/2020 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sacha 1
    26 February 2020 at 5:41 pm

    Our current govt is totally dropping the ball on decarbonising NZ's transport. https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/02/26/1052384/this-generations-nuclear-free-moment

    So: no feebate scheme; no deadline on importing fossil fuel vehicles; no using the Government's purchasing power to incentivise EV uptake; no scrappage scheme or even FBT exemptions.

    What's left? Besides a bit more interest in investing in public transport and cycle lanes, all the Government has to offer is Road User Charge exemptions for electric vehicles, $6 million a year for charging stations and crossing their fingers and hoping that the ETS saves them.

    • weka 1.1
      26 February 2020 at 6:26 pm

      Someone (Shaw?) is saying that the feebate thing is delayed not scrapped. Hope that's not just a ploy from NZF to avoid election year criticism.

      I'm getting sick of the lack of clear information though.

  2. A 2
    26 February 2020 at 5:50 pm

    Differences between 'flu vs coronavirus /COVID-19 Nice article from Taiwan News. FYI running nose/sore throat more likely the ‘flu.

    And because I like them, here is the latest update from Chris Martenson. The comments below the video are always interesting.

  3. pat 3
    26 February 2020 at 6:04 pm

    Government looking for easy political climate gains by restricting log/ coal fires….a gutless and disgraceful alternative to restricting the real culprit

    • Sabine 3.1
      26 February 2020 at 7:03 pm

      but its a nice green wash for those that want to not do much but need to be seen as doing something. Also those plebs that thought they could heat with wood, buy that darn electric heater and pay that electricity. Profit needs to be made.

      • pat 3.1.1
        26 February 2020 at 7:33 pm

        exactly…an easy target with little vested interest impact…and one that has minimal impact on CC

        • weka 3.1.1.1
          26 February 2020 at 7:43 pm

          Longstanding issue with air quality and health in many towns/cities.

          Scheme is to let people keep using existing burner, but when they need to be replaced, they won't be allowed a coal one, and a wood one will need to be more efficient.

          • pat 3.1.1.1.1
            26 February 2020 at 7:54 pm

            Pah..bollocks..its a sop

            • weka 3.1.1.1.1.1
              26 February 2020 at 8:02 pm

              You think we shouldn't be improving air quality? Chch did this a long time ago for this very reason.

              • pat …
                26 February 2020 at 8:06 pm

                I think it is exactly as I described it (no confusion for most)…it is a sop, a cheap shot that does sweet bugger all but will be promoted for all its worth…they are nothing but wankers

                • weka …
                  26 February 2020 at 8:11 pm

                  I listened to your RNZ link and it was mostly about air quality in small towns, and what the scheme is (replacement not a ban).

                  Which is probably why Mahuta (MoE) is dealing with it instead of Shaw (CC).

                  Likewise ODT, air quality.

                  https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/govt-moves-ban-old-style-wood-and-coal-burners

                  • pat …
                    26 February 2020 at 8:24 pm

                    of course it is…dont restrict flying, or buying and fueling private vehicles. build some more roads, pour a shite load more concrete with your crap housing….but we can restrict heating options for the poorest.

                    Thats CC equity for you….on ya Greens

                    • weka …
                      26 February 2020 at 8:27 pm

                      any time you want to explain exactly how the GP could change all that, have at it.

                      In the meantime, a *Labour MP announces a clean air policy, and you're blaming the Greens for it being a sop re CC.

                      We all get that not enough is being done. I just don't see how lashing out at the wrong people and wrong things helps. I think it makes it worse. The only parliamentary hope we have this year is more Green MPs and no NZF in govt. The left slamming the Greens for the failure of others will make that less likely not more.

                    • pat …
                      26 February 2020 at 8:50 pm

                      "That Labour are using this as a sop instead of addressing CC? "

                      "exactly…an easy target with little vested interest impact…and one that has minimal impact on CC"

                      26 February 2020 at 7:33 pm

                      think I have made it pretty clear

                    • weka …
                      26 February 2020 at 9:01 pm

                      You've certainly made it clear that you believe Labour are using this as a sop. I don't see any evidence that they actually are doing that (as opposed to it simply being an air quality policy).

                      Here's the announcement, nothing about climate change in it.

                      https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA2002/S00170/proposed-new-measures-to-improve-aotearoas-air-quality.htm

                      What do you mean by "with little vested interest impact”?

                  • pat …
                    26 February 2020 at 8:32 pm

                    "Although New Zealand's air quality is already fairly high, Associate Environment Minister Nanaia Mahuta said there were still areas of the country where there were issues, particularly during winter."

                    "To tackle the issue, the Government is looking at getting rid of all solid-fuel fires – such as older style wood and coal-fueled fireplaces"

                    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12311829

                    I will rescind the onya Greens…Mahuta is Labour…the rest stands

                    • weka …
                      26 February 2020 at 8:40 pm

                      the rest being what? That Labour are using this as a sop instead of addressing CC? I'm not getting it.

                  • pat …
                    26 February 2020 at 9:10 pm

                    we see what we want to see…I see yet another sop, you obviously choose not to

                  • pat …
                    26 February 2020 at 9:21 pm

                    such is politics

    • weka 3.2
      26 February 2020 at 7:29 pm

      Linky? (did you mean the UK govt?)

        • weka 3.2.1.1
          26 February 2020 at 7:41 pm

          thanks. Sounds like a replacement scheme rather than an outright ban. I'm guessing they're not looking at ultra efficient woodstoves though. Nor looking at regenag forestry replacement for firewood. I can feel a post coming on.

          Re CC, they should lead by replacing the coal/gas fired aspect of our electricity generation.

          • Pingao 3.2.1.1.1
            26 February 2020 at 9:34 pm

            Yes that is what I heard too – phasing out the most polluting solid fuel burners to improve winter air quality. Nothing to do with climate change that I heard. Christchurch had a push in this direction and it took many decades for the consenting process to be accepted and several major earthquakes (knocking down chimneys) for it to become a reality. Before that, some nights were appalling if there was a frost and still air trapping the particulates and stinky poor combustion products (all the fogeys damping down their fires at night).

            • weka 3.2.1.1.1.1
              26 February 2020 at 9:39 pm

              The coal ban seems a no brainer to me. Not sure why NZ has never gone down the ultra-effficient woodburner path though. Lots of places in the South Island where wood is the best heating option and the air quality and CC concerns can be solved by stove tech, passive heating, and regen forestry.

              • pat …
                26 February 2020 at 10:23 pm

                https://www.ecan.govt.nz/data/authorised-burners/

                "Burning wood pellets releases as much or even more carbon dioxide per unit of energy as burning coal, so in order for burning pellets to be carbon-neutral the carbon emitted into the atmosphere has to be recaptured in regenerated forests, Abt says. Residual wood, such as tree thinnings and unused tree parts left over at timber mills, is the best material for wood pellets, says Abt. But he and others say that not enough of such waste wood exists to feed the growing demand for wood pellets."

                https://e360.yale.edu/features/wood_pellets_green_energy_or_new_source_of_co2_emissions

                • Pingao …
                  27 February 2020 at 9:43 am

                  I know this is yesterday's discussion but the above criticism of pellet fires doesn't really apply to NZ. Here we use sawmill waste so no natural forests are cut down and no importing of pellets. They are pretty efficient and very clean burning – no smoke and no stink – and I am sceptical that they would be equal to or more polluting than coal per energy released for space heating purposes.

                  • pat …
                    27 February 2020 at 6:22 pm

                    Untreated waste wood shavings, sawdust and off-cuts are transported from nearby sawmills and timber product manufacturers to our state-of-the-art (yeah, it’s really big and shiny) pellet plant in Taupo. Once there this material is screened, ground, and dried, then pelletised by passing it through a die (much like an old fashioned mincer!) at high pressure, and this process releases naturally occurring lignin, which binds the pellets and gives them their shiny appearance. No harmful glue or additives required!

                    Our wood pellets contain only 5-10% moisture which means they burn longer, hotter and more efficiently than firewood or wood chips which typically have a much higher moisture content (anywhere from 25-80%).

                    Once the pellets have been formed and they have cooled, they are either packaged into 15kg bags for distribution to our retail network, or put into one tonne bags for bulk delivery to our commercial customers. Some pellets are kept aside and loaded into our delivery trucks for transport to those schools and businesses that can receive their fuel ‘loose’.

                    https://www.naturesflame.co.nz/shop/Wood+Pellet+Fuel.html

                    add up the transport, processing and packaging carbon emissions (never mind the export miles if they are exported. and some are imported) and you may wish to reconsider

                    …and the fires are useless without power

  4. WeTheBleeple 4
    26 February 2020 at 7:34 pm

    Nothing nazi about these people according to the TS Repug cheerleading squad: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-rules-mexican-parents-can-t-sue-border-patrol-n1142486

    Murder's OK. Court ruled it so, you know, diddums, right?

    • Macro 4.1
      26 February 2020 at 8:42 pm

      Yeah – unbelievable! T's appointees doing their job.

      I guess if a Mexican shot a US border guard from across the border then, that should be ok too – since they would not be in the US, and therefore bound by the Constitution.

  6. Compass Rose 6
    26 February 2020 at 8:43 pm

    https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/checkpoint/audio/2018735910/nz-super-costs-up-as-nz-retirees-on-dollar100k-passes-30-000 I want to highlight this. I have had lots of different jobs in the health and disability sector at various levels of hands-on, coordination or management and never earned $100,000/ year in my life. I currently work for a millionaire. She’s 86 years old and her family pays a team of workers living wage ($21.50/hour) to work up to 24 hours per shift (occasionally more – usually 10-14 hours per shift) to care for her while they travel the world, buy $250K cars, buy property and generally live a great life spending her millions). She gets $700 a week super. Is this fair? Before I got this job I was legitimately medically unable to work and as a sickness beneficiary (or jobseeker – medical exemption – thanks, National), I got $340/ week (in the hand, all entitlements included). I have very cheap rent. It was still over 66% of that income. No one can survive like that. Our government needs to rectify this. We had high hopes for transformation under Labour. NZ First has proved to be a snake in the grass and a big fat dead rat. We must return a majority for Labour in 2020. I’m as disgusted as every other leftie that benefits for one have risen by such pittance. Mine went up net $0.31 their first tranche of changes. An insult. The most recent ‘increases’ are insult upon injury. Before we give up on them, please, everyone… do what you can to return a majority for the left this election and Let’s Do Something About This!

    • Sacha 6.1
      26 February 2020 at 8:50 pm

      For a genuinely left-focused government, please vote Green so that Labour does not need Winston's support next time. Voting Labour gets their own caucus right-wingers as well, without any balancing force from the outside.

      • weka 6.1.1
        26 February 2020 at 9:03 pm

        And it's unlikely that Labour have any intention of raising benefits even if NZF is out of the picture. Only a large Green presence is going to make that happen.

    • McFlock 6.2
      26 February 2020 at 9:00 pm

      those on 100k are paying more than their pension take in taxes.

      Increase all taxes on the rich amd imcrease benefits. That's my position: no need to pitch one benefit against another. Increase the size of the pie.

      • weka 6.2.1
        26 February 2020 at 9:04 pm

        "those on 100k are paying more than their pension take in taxes"

        What happens if they don't draw down on Super? Wouldn't that money be freed up for someone else?

        • McFlock 6.2.1.1
          26 February 2020 at 9:13 pm

          Yeah, but if they restructure their wealth so they're not paying that tax, sooner or later it will cost more money than it "saves", they'll still get the pension, and that's without including means testing costs.

          It's not as simple as writing "$20k times 30kppl = $600mil saved" on the back of an envelope. There are loads of different variables. But "increase tax take by $10bil" basically has "how will people try to evade it" as the only significant other variable.

          • weka 6.2.1.1.1
            26 February 2020 at 9:41 pm

            so apart from the principle of universality, the main reason for not means testing Super is because rich people will just hide their income and assets?

            • Graeme 6.2.1.1.1.1
              26 February 2020 at 10:10 pm

              We'd also spend a lot, probably more than would be saved trying to enforce the means test. There were studies doing the rounds in 70's and 80's when means testing super was a proposal that showed that, hence the the idea got parked. Also wound up oldies somewhat so lots of votes in not going there.

              It's sort of like Bill English's welfare policies, spend heaps of money gathering data to 'target' benefits so the government doesn't have to spend as much on welfare, only to spend more on the data, and increase the poverty problem.

              • Sacha …
                26 February 2020 at 10:12 pm

                Also wound up oldies somewhat so lots of votes in not going there.

                Seems far more likely that was the main reason – and still is.

            • McFlock 6.2.1.1.1.2
              26 February 2020 at 10:18 pm

              More that evasion is the first additional factor to come to mind. Then there's regularly means-testing three quarters of a million pension recipients and the costs that entails. And reviewing the appeals from people who got fucked by work and income. Creates employment, I guess.

              My point is that saying "600million" is arguing for policy based on one number, when really the full thing needs to be looked at before a change like this.

              In addition to the fact it's a big threshold. Once the limit is $100k, the limit can be changed to $20k.

              Do we really want to open the door for superannuation to be the last ladder kicked away by people who had the full benefit of cradle to the grave social assistance?

      • A 6.2.2
        26 February 2020 at 9:24 pm

        They already pitched one benefit against the other.

        Because of the way benefits are calculated, many disabled will actually receive less each week. They are basically collateral damage so that everyone else can have a bit more including those 30K on Super who can clearly fend for themselves, and also those with high cash assets who are on another core benefit.

        Wish I was mistaken, but I assure you I am not.

        Sick of the attitude that disabled are bludgers, but Supers paid their taxes so they have the right to take, as does everyone with high cash assets…who have “worked”..blah blah blah.

        This entire system needs a total overhaul.

        • McFlock 6.2.2.1
          26 February 2020 at 9:33 pm

          yeah, that's true, too.

        • Compass Rose 6.2.2.2
          26 February 2020 at 11:00 pm

          Ok everyone. So we avoid the costs of means-testing people and pissing off the ‘oldies’ and losing their votes. My employer provides living wage employment to four staff, at full to part time living wage. Is that an acceptable trade-off, given ‘living wage’ is actually barely enough for the kind of people doing this work? (Single women). I.E. NOT subsided in wages by Working for Families, Best Start, or Families Package? I could say more….

    • ianmac 6.3
      26 February 2020 at 9:19 pm

      "She gets $700 a week super."

      That would be $700 a fortnight I think.

      Even so there are so many unfair cases.

      • Compass Rose 6.3.1
        26 February 2020 at 11:20 pm

        My figure is based on an overheard conversation between she and a daughter. Something about her being a widow- it was definitely $709 per week. I’m relying on anonymity on this site not to be breaching confidentiality, I admit it’s close to the line. But important transparency in this important year. I could say more…

        • Incognito 6.3.1.1
          26 February 2020 at 11:25 pm

          A word of caution meant as friendly advice.

          • Compass Rose 6.3.1.1.1
            26 February 2020 at 11:33 pm

            Plenty of elderly die in state funded care with maggots embedded in their flesh as a result of underfunding, understaffing and otherwise negligent circumstances. Are you saying we are not allowed to talk about the inequality?

            • weka 6.3.1.1.1.1
              26 February 2020 at 11:49 pm

              You need to enter your User Name, and email address the same each time you comment otherwise the system thinks you are a new person and holds your comment back for approval. Pay attention to typos and punctuation.

            • Incognito 6.3.1.1.1.2
              27 February 2020 at 7:50 am

              Are you saying we are not allowed to talk about the inequality?

              You obviously completely misunderstood my intention but feel free to carry on as you see fit.

  7. WeTheBleeple 7
    26 February 2020 at 9:08 pm

    Beautiful anthem for the dispossessed, an amazing song.



  8. Molly 8
    27 February 2020 at 4:21 am

    A good background to the council interactions regarding Ihumātao from Sandra Coney at Newsroom.

    "The Ōtuataua Stonefields were a treasure in their own right but also had the added value of being linked geologically, culturally and historically to a good number of other volcanic features and landmarks of Manukau. Puketutu Island, the magnificent two-coned Mangere Mountain, Ambury Regional Park are also on the lava field and packed full of middens, stone structures and lava caves. Like Ōtuataua, the Ambury land was confiscated after the New Zealand Wars. It came into public ownership as part of the Manukau Sewerage Scheme which carved a large sewer through this landscape, then 30 years later, a petroleum line.

    There are fossil forests at the end of Renton Road and geologists can show you the easily-identifiable fossilised remains of rimu leaves that were stripped off the trees when Maungataketake (Elletts Mountain) erupted 80,000 years ago. Further east are Pukaki Lagoon, an explosion crater once used, in the way of Auckland, as a speedway. In 1993 the crater floor was vested in the Pukaki marae committee and in 2007 the rim was purchased by MCC. The watery beauty of Crater Hill is still in private ownership and is still being quarried. In public land on the foreshore at Puhinui are still more craters.

    Beginning in 1992, MCC began developing what it called the Mangere Gateway Heritage Programme focused on the area north of the airport and west of George Bolt Drive, the main access to the airport. It was aimed at providing a tourism destination, building iwi capacity and stimulating economic activity. While there were some odd faux aspects, such as alternate groves of exotic and native trees on the Gateway route, everything appeared to be heading in the right direction.

    In the early years of the 21st Century, MCC went feral. In 2006 it came out with a suite of radical changes to the regional and district plans. It asked the ARC to move the MUL or Metropolitan Urban Limit, the planning line that marked the boundary between urban and rural. At that time the MUL stopped short of a large swathe of land on the Manukau. MCC’s proposal meant that the MUL would end at the coastal edge or Ōruarangi Road, while an area of 85.5 hectares would be rezoned as Mangere Gateway Business and would be available for business development, right up to Ōruarangi Creek. The much-touted food bowl idea, predicated on the premium quality of the soil, now included a proposal for Lion Nathan to move its brewery and bottling plant from Newmarket to Ihumātao. Over 100 hectares of airport designated land was to be brought within the MUL.

    Archaeologists and landscape architects consulted by the ARC were aghast at the scale of the proposal. With regard to the Wallace block, which was initially proposed for some residential housing, they said it was “very evidently an extension of the stonefields landscape. They have the same patterns of settlement and allow views to and from the reserve…” Development would sever the connection between papakainga and the stonefields. MCC’s own consultants said it should be kept as open space or rural.

    The Mangere Gateway Heritage Area had now shrunk to the four blocks of land surrounding the stonefields. In its suite of planning changes MCC initiated Notice of Requirements for the four blocks. A NOR is a planning tool that protects land for future stated purposes – in this case, for passive public open space and landscape protection – preventing other development. MCC accepted by doing so it had an obligation to buy the land. But the designation constrained the value of the land and some of the owners, including Gavin H Wallace Ltd, owner of the Wallace block, appealed to the Environment Court.

    In 2011 the Environment Court began hearing the case, with Auckland Council taking over the roles of the legacy MCC and ARC. Makaurau Marae Maori Trust Board also appeared supporting the NOR and stating it wanted no development on the Wallace block.

    To the considerable shock of Council planners and archaeologists, Environment Court Judge Whiting and his team came down on the side of Gavin H Wallace Ltd, agreeing with their argument that the zoning obstructed their economic needs and wellbeing. Judge Whiting argued “sensitive development” was possible, and, to add insult to injury, the Environment Court subsequently awarded $57,000 costs against the Council. In terms of the original vision for a large heritage area, this was a discouraging development.

    The following history is well known. The Wallace block was sold to Fletcher Residential for housing and the Auckland Council designated it a Special Housing Area. Makaurau Marae Maori Trust Board and Te Kawerau a Maki Iwi Authority negotiated with Fletchers for an area of open space and further papakainga housing, and basically, at this point, Auckland Council threw in the towel."

    The whole article is worth the read to understand the failure of institutional processes in this situation.