Labour’s climate change policy – nuclear free moment

Written By: - Date published: 10:05 am, September 8th, 2017 - 120 comments
Categories: climate change, global warming, jacinda ardern, labour, leadership - Tags: , , , ,

Jacinda Ardern has released Labour’s climate change policy – including zero net carbon emissions by 2050. Isaac Davison in The Herald:

Labour unveils climate change policy: All sectors to pay for emissions

The Labour Party has released its climate change policy, which includes a new goal of net zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Labour leader Jacinda Ardern also said all sectors including farmers would have to pay for their emissions within her first term, though their costs would initially be offset.

The party previously had a goal of reducing emissions by 40 per cent from 1990 levels by 2030.

As previously announced, Labour would make legally binding emissions reductions targets and would set up a new government agency to oversee the work.

“For too long, we have set targets and not done what’s needed to achieve them,” Ardern said.

“That’s why Labour will set up an independent Climate Commission to examine what reductions can practically be achieved by each sector and recommend emissions reductions targets.” …

As extreme weather pummels the globe, and as the Nats tried to bury a damning report on the impact climate change in NZ before the election, the need for realistic action on climate change has never been more urgent.

Jacinda has called climate change “my generation’s nuclear-free moment”.

120 comments on “Labour’s climate change policy – nuclear free moment”

  1. Pat 1

    some long overdue leadership and an important first step

  2. roy cartland 2

    We’re way past Climate Change. Time for a new term (thanks George):

    http://www.monbiot.com/2013/10/04/climate-breakdown/

    “Climate change and global warming are inadequate terms for what it reveals. The story it tells is of climate breakdown. This is, or so it seems, a catastrophe we are capable of foreseeing but incapable of imagining. It’s a catastrophe we are singularly ill-equipped to prevent.”
    etc

    Jacinda’s right. We can’t keep faffing around deciding ‘who’s going to pay’ – we all must, we all will.

    • Ed 2.1

      I have linked to Monbiot ‘s new book on Open Mike.
      It’s called ‘Out of the wreckage. A new politics for an age of crisis.’

      By the way, if you really want Labour held to account on climate change, vote Green.

      • roy cartland 2.1.1

        Yep, LP has the momentum now, they’ve crossed over into the public. All good enviro supporters need to get the GP in to steady the ship, lest the ugly faction of haters supporting NZF stick their oar in:

        “You’ve just got to go to the supermarkets and you see it, they’re different – they don’t look like us,” said one.

        “it’s not as if they’re English speaking people,” another added.

        “I voted for Donald Trump, I love Donald Trump and Winston Peters is like him to me – so he’s got my vote.”
        http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/election-2017/338969/peters-dismisses-junk-science-polls

        Ugh.

        • mac1 2.1.1.1

          How does a recent immigrant from America who voted for Trump in November 2016 get to vote in an election in New Zealand ten months later when there is a year’s requirement of permanent residence in order to get a NZ vote?

          • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1.1

            I think that only citizens should be allowed to vote.

            • Cinny 2.1.1.1.1.1

              +1

            • lurgee 2.1.1.1.1.2

              Piss off. I’ve lived here for 15 years, married to a New Zealisher with two beautiful New Zealish sons, I work as a secondary school teacher, teaching New Zealish children, and paid oodles of tax; but you don’t think I should get a vote because I’m a ‘only’ a permanent resident?

              Get lost.

              From my cold, dead hands!

              • So, why aren’t you a citizen then? Why are you being so lazy? Is it really unreasonable of us to expect you to transition to citizen before we allow you to vote?

                BTW, I think the ‘permanent resident’ visa needs to be removed. You’re either here on a temporary visa or you’re a citizen.

                • lurgee

                  You’re aware it costs about $500 to apply for citizenship? Wouldn’t stop me but it would prevent lots of poorer people doing it. Great way to disenfranchise poor immigrants!

                  I’m surprised National and NZ First aren’t calling you up for policy ideas.

                  • Great way to disenfranchise poor immigrants!

                    That’s not actually our problem.

                    That said, I’d probably drop the fees for immigration.

                    • lurgee

                      That’s not actually our problem.

                      Sounding more and more like a right-of-National / ACT ‘libertarian’ with every second. Are you sure you are not actually David Seymour?

                  • Do you actually have an argument or are you just going full RWNJ ad hominem?

                    Under present rules if you can’t afford to apply to become a citizen then it’s not our problem.

                    • lurgee

                      You’re the one brandishing the Trumpesque idea that only citizens should be able to vote. RWNJ yourself.

                    • That’s not trumpesce – that’s simple logic. No nation can allow non-citizens to control their destiny.

                    • lurgee

                      Now you’re getting hysterical. “Control their destiny”? More like, “have a minuscule amount of influence in elections.”

                      And New Zealand has been allowing that for quite some time, without sinking beneath the waves. In spite of my best efforts, Hone Harawira is not yet Prime Minister, so clearly my attempts to control New Zealand’s destiny are very ineffective.

                      Why change a system that works well enough? People who live here for an extended period should have a say, as the government may pass legislation that affects them, regardless of whether they’ve mumbled their way through God Defend New Zealand at some farcical ceremony.

            • Paul Campbell 2.1.1.1.1.3

              I don’t think so – I lived in the US on my OE for 20 years, was never allowed to vote there (nor in NZ after I was 3 years gone) – but I paid my taxes, in a country founded on the idea of “no taxation without representation” – I used to joke about going down to the Bay every July 4th and dipping a tea bag in it, until a bunch or rednecks stole my shtick.

              So I’m glad we let tax payers vote here whether they are citizens or not, I think it’s a wonderfully enlightened, civilised attitude we should all be proud of

              • And if you’d become a citizen then you would have been allowed to.

                Really, what’s you’re problem?

                And have you considered the problems that come with tying voting to money?

                When you do that you get the ACToid option of only people who pay net taxes get to vote:

                “There are already far too many people who have a vote and don’t pay tax,” he said.

                And then we’d also probably have to allow foreign corporations to vote as well.

                So, no, I don’t think that no taxation without representation is a valid position.

                If you’re a citizen then you must vote. Nobody else is allowed to.

            • Phil Andrews 2.1.1.1.1.4

              I think it is fine that you can vote as a permanent resident: but I am one.

              The reason I have not become a citizen is that to do so I would have to swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen. Since I didn’t have to do so to be born in England I really am not prepared to do so to become a citizen of NZ.

              If making the oath means anything I don’t see how, after making it, I could continue to argue that NZ should become a republic and I don’t want to give up that democratic right.

      • red-blooded 2.1.2

        Labour are presenting strong policies. Vote Green if you want to, but not because you don’t trust Labour. They’re stepping up to these challenges and taking true leadership.

        • Ed 2.1.2.1

          I agree.

        • Sans Cle 2.1.2.2

          Yes, but Greens have greater expertise and depth of knowledge. I’m thrilled to read this from Labour this morning; but can’t see it being implemented without the Green Party in government.

          • Carolyn_nth 2.1.2.2.1

            Glad Labour is highlighting their Climate policy as a priority.

            I also look at a party’s track record, competence and values in deciding who to vote for.

            Greens have a long record of giving a high priority to climate change.

            I am not yet sure of Labour’s commitment to climate policies, or how they would go in negotiating relevant legislation with other (non-GP) parties.

            There needs to be a strong GP presence to ensure the strongest version of climate policy gets enacted.

        • Roy 2.1.2.3

          I do want Labour, but don’t want them diluted by having to appease Peters.

        • tracey 2.1.2.4

          Offset = taxpayer subsidy for farmers. Still

          • paul andersen 2.1.2.4.1

            and they get a free pass on health and safety rules, got to protect those farmers(especially the corporate ones eh?)

            • tracey 2.1.2.4.1.1

              Yes. Given how some farmers think “we” hate them, we do give alot of our hard earned taxes to help their businesses

  3. a start and that is important

    I’m thinking climate change is not like nuclear free but more like World War 2 – it is global and affects everyone and requires effort not considered possible – war time survival effort, desperation and heroic effort.

    The world war 2 line creates urgency, puts what is at stake into real focus, builds links with the past and our grandparents – think ANZAC day, is accurate in terms of importance.

    “Climate change for us is like WW2 was for our grandparents generation – a time of sacrifice, a time of compassion and a time of determination.”

    • Ed 3.1

      Your statement that the analogy should be to World War 2 is correct.
      This will require sacrifice, rationing, hardship.

      Let’s hope that 35 years of neoliberalism hasn’t undermined our altruistic nature too much.
      WW2 happened 10 years after we had made sacrifices to get through the Great Depression- people were used to helping other and Savage’s government had shown NZers the benefits of a society that built houses for its citizens.

      35 years of Prebble, Shipley, Douglas, Richardson, Key, English and their cult of the individual has not been the ideal preparation to deal with such a crisis.

      But, as you say, it is a start.

      • marty mars 3.1.1

        ” It was the most widespread war in history, and directly involved more than 100 million people from over 30 countries. In a state of total war, the major participants threw their entire economic, industrial, and scientific capabilities behind the war effort, erasing the distinction between civilian and military resources.

        World War II was the deadliest conflict in human history, marked by 50 million to 85 million fatalities, most of which were civilians in the Soviet Union and China. It included massacres, the deliberate genocide of the Holocaust, strategic bombing, starvation, disease and the first use of nuclear weapons in history.[1][2][3][4]”

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

        every single dead person had family, hopes and dreams – they believed in things and they lived – they were like us and we are like them.

        • Ed 3.1.1.1

          The impacts are going on as we speak.

          Deastation in the Caribbean and in Texas.
          Thousands dead in Bangladesh and India.
          Wildfires in Canada and the US
          Pacific islands submerging.
          Millions suffering famine in the sub Sahara
          The Arctic melting.

          The death toll from climate catastrophe will make WW2’s casualties pale.

      • crashcart 3.1.2

        As apt as the term may be I could see it being labelled as hysterical. Starting off framing it as a challenge we are addressing locally that is a global threat (just like nuclear free) is a good first step I think.

        Unfortunately as we see more Harvey’s and Irma’s the destruction will make the WWII point on its own probably.

    • tracey 3.2

      In the 80s some of us genuinely thought the end of the world might be imminent. As in, could be any day. We need that urgency around climate change

  4. francesca 4

    The Greens have been banging on about this for decades.
    Why does it take so long for the other parties to be dragged to the table
    This is why we need the Greens in govt., rigorous research , plenty of strategies and solutions

    • popexplosion 4.1

      Take water. These natural factories of geology that produce potable water. Nat-Lab see them as part of general water. But Greens see then for their special value.

      Undermining natural renewable wealth is intrinsic to the Nat-Lab dichotomy.

    • red-blooded 4.2

      Labour was the first government in the world to introduce an all-emissions policy. The fact that the Nats have diluted it to the point of meaninglessness doesn’t change the fact that Labour have always taken CC seriously.

    • I do like the term ‘predatory delay’. I think it sums up what’s been happening quite well:

      This is what I mean when I say that we have a politics of “predatory delay.” Many wealthy people understand that their profits are extracted through destructively unsustainable practices, and they’ve known it for decades. By and large, they no longer deny the need for change, they simply argue for delay, on the basis that to change too quickly would be unfair to them.

      The rich doing what they’ve always done – destroy society so as to maintain their position.

  5. Anne 5

    An independent Climate Commission whose sole responsibility is to direct meaningful responses to global warming is the way to go. It is very important the Greens be in Govt. and an integral part of that commission because they and Labour are the only two parties who fully understand the catastrophic portent of Climate Change.

    To be fair I think Gareth Morgan might appreciate it but he would have been wiser to have thrown his lot behind Labour and/or the Greens in his attempt to wield influence on the issue.

    Edit: francesca Labour has been banging on about it for yonks too but nobody took any notice. Have you forgotten the Clark government attempts to address CC concerns and the jeering and sneering that confronted them from all sections of the so-called Nat leaning Establishment?

    • Pat 5.1

      shower heads and lightbulbs….they were ahead of the electorate, so clear in hindsight…oh and the infamous fart tax

    • francesca 5.2

      Anne
      But they still wont commit to reducing cow numbers. All over the world the message is that we have far too many stock numbers and shouldn’t be relying on animal protein if we’re serious about climate change. Reduce by 30% is the message from our own Mike Joy and many other world experts.
      They go on about fencing off riparian strips and planting them . That wont do a blind thing about nitrates from the thousands of tons of urea spread every year, and run off.
      Labour wont ban deep sea oil drilling but introduce better “safety ” issues round spills…weak

      Labour doesn’t question the 20 billion to be spent on military.
      Weapons /war are hugely damaging to our environment …and the lives of others..

      Spin it how you like , the Greens have the strongest climate change policies, Labour has been weak
      Labour backed down on the methane tax, just like Helen did on Closing the Gap
      And so I say again, for there to be a truly progressive govt. , we need the Greens

      • Ed 5.2.1

        Rachel Stewart says cut the dairy herd by 80%

        • The reality is that our farms need to be cut to the point where they provide for NZ and no more. Replant the farms that are no longer used in forest and let nature take her course there.

          • roy cartland 5.2.1.1.1

            +100
            We produce 25+ times the amount we use, right at the time when agriculture emissions should be decreasing. Milk isn’t even that great a food source anyway.

            Likewise, we love meat, but it isn’t necessary – if it tastes the same as those pulse and bean products, there’s no real need for it to be dead animal.

          • tracey 5.2.1.1.2

            And offset in that press release means what? Subsidy? Tax break or other relief that other polluters wont get?

          • Ed 5.2.1.1.3

            Dairy is a cruel sunset industry.

          • Gabby 5.2.1.1.4

            What happens to the people in countries that can’t do that?

      • exkiwiforces 5.2.2

        “Labour doesn’t question the 20 billion to be spent on military.”

        How do you purpose to deal with poaching, over fishing and under reporting with NZ EEZ or on the High seas?

        The Green Party plans to protect marine mammals and ecosystems

        How do you purpose to deal with land and sea grabs such as the South China Sea and when the Antarctica Treaty comes up for renewal?

        How you do purpose to deal with Climate change refugees due to rising sea levels?

        How you do purpose to deal with Climate change refugees due to countries going to war over arable land and water? (For starters you are going to peacekeepers trained to at least to Chapter 7 mission standards)

        I can throw a few scenarios at you if you want? Once I’ve find my notes on a planning course I did on Climate Change and the effects of Climate Change on the Military planning and operations.
        I can tell you right now you won’t get much change from the 20Billon NZD on new military equipment or upgrades.

        • Stuart Munro 5.2.2.1

          $20 billion is not cost effective to defend the EEZ – we really don’t get much out of it. Climate change refugees have never come to NZ in armed convoys – even their folorn hope vessels don’t get this far.

          Too much of the $20 billion is spent abroad – we ought to be rolling more of our own gear. It wouldn’t be directly cheaper, but we’d build capacity and the local economy would get something out of it besides the bill.

      • Janet 5.2.3

        “All over the world the message is that we have far too many stock numbers and shouldn’t be relying on animal protein if we’re serious about climate change. Reduce by 30% is the message from our own Mike Joy and many other world experts.”

        No, all over the world there are far too many people…..Reduce cows and people by 30 %

        • McFlock 5.2.3.1

          Best way to reduce the number of people is to make them all middle class. Fertility rate drops below 2.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 5.2.3.1.1

            +1

            Obviously the solution is to kick poor people off benefits until
            they die morale improves.

    • tracey 5.3

      Good reminder Anne. Thanks

  6. Janet 6

    Yes the present government has been two faced re the need to become perpetually sustainable in New Zealand and over the world.In many areas of NZ life they make lip service to “sustainable” but clearly do not know what it means in many cases.

    In farming many of the younger half of the population have studied to some degree and would like to start or are farming sustainably ( in the true sense of the word ) but they are having to do this in the current dominate unsustainable farming economy. There is no relief or recognition to the change of financial dynamics incurred with a change to sustainable farming ; for example in land rates . Rates are assessed on the non sustainable basis.

  7. Ed 7

    Any NZ government serious about climate change would tackle other industrial dairy farming model head on fearlessly.
    They would radically reduce the number of cows . Rachel Stewart, who knows a lot about this subject, says it should be cut by 80%.
    And I respect her view a lot more than English’s or Federated Farmers . They simply represent vested commercial interests.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11648542

  8. Bill 8

    Looks like yet more triangulation of Green Party policy to me (net zero by 50).

    As for meeting global warming “head on”, yeah…What was that policy again? The one intended to ensure all school kids can drive cars? 🙄

  9. Ed 9

    IdiotSavant praises Labour’s climate change policies and say we need Greens in Parliament.

    http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2017/09/labour-on-climate-change.html

  10. Eco maori 10

    Yes that the policy I have been waiting for from Labour big ups for them courageously launching this target on mitigating against climate change.
    We have the resource and technology to do this we just need the leadership like the greens to start the movement in our journey to a brighter safer future.

    That farmer on seven sharp was pissing in the wind blaming social media for the bad views of farming.Well no social media is the tool that we are using to educate people around the world and NZ about the lies been told to us about our corrupt systems that MSM are not aloud to tell us so social media by passes MSM and our government.Our Government can’t control social media so they are trying to discredit social media social media is the most powerful passive tool we can use to check there bad behavior. And farmers image is stained because national has done nothing to help them or make farmers mitigate climate change.

    Now farmers DON’T listen to national rhetoric on the cost of mitigating climate change you see everyone in NZ will be contributing to help fight climate change so the cost won’t make you go broke as NZ needs profitable business to help fight climate change.

    And we will use social media to hold the government to there promises and to influence government policy that benefit the many i.e. get laws made to punish employer’s theft from there employees.

    • eco Maori/kiwi 10.1

      + All that National have did to our environment is change laws so a lots of trees were harvested 5 8 years to early and wasted the best growth period of these trees and did not encourage any new tree planting.
      And that tainted our farmers national set up a sham carbon trading platform to allow these trees to be wasted.

  11. Siobhan 11

    oh man, do not make that connection…in 1987 while we were celebrating the Nuclear Free Legislation some other ‘stuff’ was sneaking by…Grant Robertson has been amazing this election, and he demolished Joyce..but how well do we really know what makes him tick??

    • Ed 11.1

      Yes one does wonder if that was a useful distraction for a Douglas and his Vichy government.

    • Nordy 11.2

      Won’t don’t you ask him…he is very accessible….this sort of vague, implied criticism is really not very helpful.

      • tracey 11.2.1

        Why is it a criticism to say she still doesnt know what makes him tick? I take her to be more than she can tell from campaign or press statements? Ask him? You think he will sit down with her for a few hours of honest exchange?

        • Nordy 11.2.1.1

          Do you know he won’t?

          All I am suggesting is that engagement with our (prospective) politicians is preferable to vague speculation or criticism.

      • Siobhan 11.2.2

        He strikes me as being a touch ‘careerist’.
        So I’m sure if I asked him questions, his answers would be pretty much whatever I wanted to hear.
        I certainly do not see him as being a hard core ideological bulldozer like Douglas. Thank goodness.
        There will be no ‘Robernomics’.
        But I’m still not clear of his ‘vision’, beyond the press statements and selling us the UBI, all of which are suitably user friendly. And being fiscally ‘responsible’ by keeping to spending limits established by National.

        That still leaves alot of ‘wiggle room’. Not for anything terrible, in fact Labour will be a blessed respite, but probably not the reset we need as a society dealing with entrenched inequality.

        • Nordy 11.2.2.1

          You strike me as a touch ‘cynical’ – you see how labels can be used without actually saying anything of substance.

          Do you think he has different vision to the one that Jacinda has been articulating?

          If you read the ‘budget responsibility rules’ you will see that Labour isn’t keeping to anyone else’s rules, rather they are setting prudent fiscal parameters and objectives, as anyone with a budget should.

          I understand Grant has an active facebook presence – ask him what you want to know… try him …….

  12. Janet 12

    With Greens one side and NZF the other the Labour Party is more balanced !

    • tracey 12.1

      Wont rock the boat, keep the basic status quo and grind the tenets of neo liberalism along …

    • katipo 12.2

      When I hear this argument I’m reminded of ‘The Balance Fallacy’….
      “There is a choice to make between doing X or doing Y. Therefore, the answer is somewhere between X and Y
      The problem is that it’s possible that either X or Y is entirely true, meaning that only partially doing the right thing makes little sense. This argument is generally built around the idea that the middle point between two extremes is equal parts of each side and therefore equally acceptable to both sides; but as the saying goes, half a kitten is not half as cute, it’s a bloody mess.”
      https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy

      If the world had adopted green climate policies of today 100years ago we would be a lot better off now than we have been by hopping little by little towards them.

    • CLEANGREEN 12.3

      100% Janet,

      We need balance here for sure as to not scare off the aged he who mostly either reside in NZF or swing voters in National.

      Labour now have a massive solid movement that will carry us all forward to save our country and need all opposition Parties inside that tent.

      There are some hard roads ahead and do need to take the bulk of the people with us to get there.

      Jacinda is a gift to us, and we must embrace labour’s new formation and solid base, a winning choice.

      ilovejacinda.

  13. ianmac 13

    Bill steals credit but Helen is watching him!
    “Former Prime Minister Helen Clark has again shot down one of Bill English’s claims that National was responsible for a government policy.

    Lawyer Felix Geiringer said on Twitter that English had claimed credit for the government policy to make 90 per cent of New Zealand’s energy renewable by 2025.

    Clark responded by saying her Labour Government set out the 90 per cent target in 2007.”

    • tracey 13.1

      And more importantly stil, are we there yet Bill? It shows you that they have been lying for years and not being called on it… so they keep doing it.

  14. Poission 14

    Meanwhile in the real world (over the last 30 minutes) we lose around 50-60 mw of wind generation which was replace by gas and gas coal generation.

    https://www.transpower.co.nz/power-system-live-data

  15. Poission 15

    9 th september is the anniversary of North Korea where we will see that nuclear issues are the nuclear issues of our time.

    Monitoring will be problematic due to nuclear events from the sun promulgating to the regions of interest.

    http://www.sws.bom.gov.au/HF_Systems/6/2/2

    https://theconversation.com/massive-sunspots-and-huge-solar-flares-mean-unexpected-space-weather-for-earth-83677

  16. The Chairman 16

    What is this estimated to cost the country?

    Moreover, who do Labour expect will pay for this?

    Is there anything safeguarding low income earners, preventing the policy from exacerbating poverty and inequality?

    • Ad 16.1

      Good questions.
      Currently their response to every tax question is:
      “Tax working group.”

      Like the answer “Jesus” to every question in Sunday School.

    • http://www.labour.org.nz/climatechange

      http://www.labour.org.nz/fiscalplan

      the last question is covered by quite a few policies – check them out when you read up about the ones i’ve helped you with 🙂

    • tracey 16.3

      Where do you ask your questions about how National will afford all their promises and with more detail on their off the hoof policies? NZF?

    • red-blooded 16.4

      Read the policy, Chairman. For starters, the idea is to have polluters pay. Yes, agriculture will have its costs offset at first (90% – so starting them off very gently), but as the scheme matures all emitters will pay. That’s one way to encourage them to find solutions to lower emissions.

      Why would you expect this policy to hurt low income earners or exacerbate poverty? Note that there are plans for transitioning workers in high carbon sectors and creating more jobs in sectors that are carbon neutral or carbon sinks (like forestry).

      Plus, here’s another question for you – who do you think will be most harmed by the effects of climate change? The rich, or the poor? What are the costs of not acting to address climate change?

      • The Chairman 16.4.1

        I haven’t had the chance to read the policy yet. Hence, was hoping someone would have the answers.

        The reason I expect this policy to hurt low income earners is due to how costs tend to be passed on. Hence, it is those at the bottom who tend to wear the full fiscal burden.

        I expect the poor will be most harmed by both the fiscal and physical impact. But like most things, the poor aren’t the ones in control, thus carry little fault.

        I’m not arguing against it (acting to address climate change) I just want to know if Labour expect the poor to pay for it?

        Their flat regional fuel tax (akin to GST) will hit lower income households the hardest, thus it’s not a good sign they are genuinely looking out for the poor.

        • marty mars 16.4.1.1

          Yawn – read the policy lazybones and you won’t have to embarass yourself with your gnat patsy questions or is that too much work for you. I put them there to make it easy for you – not easy enough or doesn’t fit with your agenda?

          • The Chairman 16.4.1.1.1

            I now see why you posted a link instead of directly answering my questions.

            The closest the policy comes to addressing my questions is in the following abstract below. Which you can see, is rather vague on details.

            There is no estimated cost. There is no mention of how providing leadership will look on the ground and how low income households will be protected from bearing too much of the fiscal burden.

            “Economic transitions can cause major economic and social disruption. They have too often been done poorly in New Zealand, with workers and communities bearing the brunt. It does not need to be that way. A transition can be made equitably to achieve positive outcomes for workers, enhance communities and create new areas of growth. Labour will provide leadership for a just transition to a low-carbon and climate-resilient economy – one that maximises the benefits of climate action while minimising shocks and hardships for workers and their communities. Proper planning will ensure a just transition is managed in a fair and just manner, where affected workers and communities are supported to find secure and decent jobs in the new low-carbon economy. In order that the necessary education and skills training occurs, there must be good workforce planning. This is critical for ensuring that individuals and communities are well-placed to benefit from the transition.”

            https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/nzlabour/pages/8493/attachments/original/1504847668/Climate_Change_Manifesto.pdf?1504847668

            • marty mars 16.4.1.1.1.1

              so didn’t fit your agenda – oooookkkkkkkkaaaaaay – well done you on reading it 🙂 although next time do it first and you won’t have to ask silly questions.

              • The Chairman

                “so didn’t fit your agenda”

                Agenda? What agenda?

                What it didn’t do, Marty, was answer my questions. And they were far from silly.

                Can we take the fact that you find them silly as an indication of where your values sit when it comes to lower income households?

                • lol

                  “Should it mean much to you
                  If I hang my head
                  Now I want my own time
                  To lift my empty hands

                  Should chew right through it
                  Should think it over
                  Should hold on to it
                  Should just lose it

                  Now I see right through you
                  Into your empty space
                  You make it seem so easy
                  Deliver the bitter taste

                  Should chew right through it
                  Should think it over
                  Should hold on to it
                  Should just lose it

                  Don’t wanna give you up
                  Should I scream to make you hold my hand?
                  I wonder how I’m gonna hold myself

                  Should just let it go
                  Let it go

                  Sure don’t mean much do you
                  But you’re in my head
                  I’m looking in from the outside
                  But there’s no turning back

                  Should chew right through it
                  Should think it over
                  Should hold on to it
                  Should just lose it

                  Don’t wanna give you up
                  Should I scream to make you hold my hand?
                  I wonder how I’m gonna hold myself

                  Should just let it go
                  Let it go

                  Now I see right through you
                  Into your empty space
                  You make it seem so easy
                  Deliver the bitter taste

                  Should chew right through it
                  Should think it over
                  Should hold on to it
                  Should just lose it

                  Don’t wanna give you up
                  Should I scream to make you hold my hand?
                  I wonder how I’m gonna hold myself

                  Should just let it go
                  Let it go
                  Let it go
                  Let it go”

        • Lara 16.4.1.2

          “I haven’t had the chance to read the policy yet. Hence, was hoping someone would have the answers.”

          Stop being so damned lazy and expecting others to read it and summarise it for you.

          Or in more abbreviated and less polite terms, fuck off.

          • The Chairman 16.4.1.2.1

            The policy had just been released. Moreover, I was seeking answers to 3 specific questions, not a full summary.

  17. Ad 17

    Clark just slapped English down again on carbon neutrality.

    That is one helluva proxy weapon .

  18. Doogs 18

    I hope people understand this. Trump doesn’t. and I suspect that many people discussing climate change really don’t know the difference either –

    “Weather is what you experience when you step outside on any given day. In other words, it is the state of the atmosphere at a particular location over the short-term. Climate is the average of the weather patterns in a location over a longer period of time, usually 30 years or more.” – NIWA

  19. Fed farmers – labour policy will hurt the region’s.

    Typical – climate change will affect everyone INCLUDING farmers in the regions – wake up selfish dicks.

    • Ed 19.1

      Aren’t they aware of the more extreme floods, storms and droughts we’ve been enduring?
      I liken people who deny climate change and try to prevent action to mitigate its effects to those people who denied the Holocaust.

      • marty mars 19.1.1

        I feel your intensity around this – not sure if id go where you just went and i get why that analogy is gone to.

      • infused 19.1.2

        NZ’s climate change policy will have no affect on anything world wide. So expect the weather to be the same.

        Furthermore, nailing all the productive industries will make NZ inc less competitive on the international market.

        So effectively policies like this make you feel good and achieve nothing.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 19.1.2.1

          …nailing all the productive industries will make NZ inc less competitive…

          Except that the world is currently investing in post-fossil fuel tech, and entirely new markets have opened as a result.

          I have no problem with believing that you can’t see the opportunities, just don’t make the mistake that everyone else is afflicted with a similar handicap.

          • infused 19.1.2.1.1

            yeah, you kinda miss the point that ripping out these rare earth materials to make batteries is way worse than what’s been happening in the last 20 odd years.

            At the end of the day, you have to eat. That’s what NZ produces.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 19.1.2.1.1.1

              All I can say is thank goodness I don’t have to eat what you produce, Infused.

  20. Heather Grimwood 20

    My earnest hope is that the new Labour Government will establish some form of cross-party collaboration on climate change, this most urgent of issues. ( I acknowledge this happened among some like-minded M.P.s, but more unofficially , in recent months). With the co-opting of specialists in the field, this could advance our own achievements, and maybe set an example as did our anti-nuclear stance.

  21. Thinkerr 21

    I’m looking forward to political climate change though…

  22. Patricia Bremner 22

    Jacinda “Will call the Greens first”

    Because “My word is my bond”.

    So, voters are you thinking this through?

    Please make sure the Greens get in.

    Compromise will sour things ….people want progress, not a hotch-potch of political foes wrangling instead of planning.

  23. Pat 23

    “In responding to the hurricane – and in funding some of the repair – everyone turns to government, just as they did in the aftermath of the 2008 economic crisis. Again, it is ironic that this is now occurring in a part of the country where government and collective action are so frequently rebuked. It was no less ironic when the titans of US banking, having preached the neoliberal gospel of downsizing government and eliminating regulations that proscribed some of their most dangerous and antisocial activities, turned to government in their moment of need.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/sep/08/harvey-markets-hurricanes-katrina-sandy-political-action-disasters

    lessons for our own neolib acolytes….

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Membership: Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board
    The Governments of Australia and New Zealand have announced the membership of the Australia and New Zealand Electronic Invoicing Board (ANZEIB) today. This is an important step towards implementing e-Invoicing across both countries to help businesses save time and money ...
    1 week ago
  • An end to unnecessary secondary tax
    Workers who are paying too much tax because of incorrect secondary tax codes are in line for relief with the passage of legislation through Parliament late last night. The Taxation (Annual Rates for 2018-19, Modernising Tax Administration, and Remedial Matters) ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Chatham Islands pāua plan approved
    Efforts to reverse the decline in the Chatham Islands pāua fishery are the focus of a new plan jointly agreed between government, the local community and industry. Fisheries Minister Stuart Nash says the plan was developed by the PauaMAC4 Industry ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Bill introduced for synthetics crackdown
    The Police will get stronger powers of search and seizure to crackdown on synthetic drugs under new legislation, which makes the two main synthetics (5F-ADB and AMB-FUBINACA) Class A drugs. The Government has today introduced the Misuse of Drugs Amendment ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Blasphemous libel law repealed
    The archaic blasphemous libel offence will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill today, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Coalition Government lassos livestock rustling
    New rules to crack down on livestock rustling will come into force following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Medieval law axed
    The ‘year and a day rule’ rule will be repealed following the passing of the Crimes Amendment Bill, says Justice Minister Andrew Little. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Further steps to combat tax evasion
    Further steps to combat tax evasion Revenue Minister Stuart Nash has announced New Zealand is expanding its global ability to combat tax evasion by joining forces with authorities in 30 countries and jurisdictions. Cabinet has agreed to add another ...
    3 weeks ago