Lunch time quiz

Written By: - Date published: 12:37 pm, November 23rd, 2009 - 21 comments
Categories: climate change, national/act government - Tags:

1) What the hell is John Key trying to say here?

“Maori are not getting special preference, if you go back to those pre-1990 forests Maori are significant owners in that area, so is Ngai Tahu, those forests are all affected by the emissions trading scheme unless we can get a change at Copenhagen and there’s no change for those people.”

a) Ngai Tahu are not Maori
b) Only Maori owned pre-1990 forests
c) whatever you want him to be saying, as long as you vote for him

2) How much will National’s giveaways to the Maori elite cost, with no benefit to ordinary Kiwis- Maori, Pakeha or otherwise?

a) $50m deal buys Maori vote on emissions – NZ Herald
b) up to $2 billion to iwi, according to iwi
c) $25 million at most according to Nick Smith

3) How much will National’s subsidies to polluters cost us?

a) $150 billion more debt by 2050, and about $100 billion in interest payments, according to Treasury
b) our international reputation as clean and green
c) our environment
d) none of the above according to National

21 comments on “Lunch time quiz”

  1. I never thought I would see the day that Marty G would agree with Whaleoil.

  2. Incidentally my answers are;

    2:uhmmmm…all three if you believe the media

  3. George D 3

    There are huge liabilities locked up in those forests. When they’re cut down they incur significant carbon costs in lost sequestration and the emissions caused by deforestation (not insubstantial). Insulating Maori forest owners from these liabilities entirely, and in perpetuity, as the Maori Party and National are doing is likely to be very expensive, even at today’s carbon prices.

  4. Bright Red 4

    I don’t get it. As long as forest owners replant their land in trees once they fell the current harvest there’s no loss to them, they only have to pay carbon credits if they change the land use.

    All the Maori Party is doing is making deforestation cheaper.

    • Andy B 4.1

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

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

      • Galeandra 4.1.1

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

  5. Neil 5

    I can’t really be bothered anymore with these left wing attacks on Maori, you guys and Goff can try it if you want but i bet it won’t get many votes.

    “elites”? Well speaking from experience I know of forrestry that’s in trusts. I know of communities putting trust money to work in education and health.

    so do bleat on ignorantly – and consign Labour to opposition indefinitely.

    This Christmas I won’t be defending Labour or the left in general on race issues.

    • Daveo 5.1

      I’ve been uncomfortable with some of Goff’s phrasing – you’ve got to be very careful with your language lest people get the wrong idea – but I don’t see any attack on Maori here. Iwi elites, perhaps, but not Maori. If you want anti-Maori racism I suggest you go talk to the people behind iwi/kiwi.

    • Bright Red 5.3

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

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

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

    • Blue 5.4

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

  6. Clarke 6

    Marty! You missed the essential question!

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

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

    • ChrisA 6.1

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

  7. Outofbed 7

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

  8. HandleTheJandal 8

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

  9. Craig Glen Eden 9

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

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

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

    • Alex 9.1

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

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

      • Pascal's bookie 9.1.1

        Yes. This.

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

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

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

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

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

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

        The two issues should be kept separate.

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

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

      • Richard 9.1.2

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

      • Marty G 9.1.3

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

        • Alex

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

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

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts