Open Mike 22/07/2017

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, July 22nd, 2017 - 91 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose. The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Step up to the mike …

91 comments on “Open Mike 22/07/2017 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Tony Veitch (not etc) 1
    22 July 2017 at 6:12 am

    Further to my post of yesterday about extreme climate change, we need to be proactive, not reactive. At the moment we have a government which is barely even reactive: business as usual, as if you can have infinite growth on a finite planet!

    So, how could we future-proof this country, accepting that we have not a hope in hell of escaping the world-wide effects of climate change:

    • ‘weather bombs’ like the one that hit South Canterbury yesterday will occur with increasing frequency and intensity. These are hard to guard against, but putting more money into Civil Defence both nationally and regionally would be a good idea.

    • think locally, not globally. For instance, unless bananas can be grown in the far north of New Zealand, (and they can) bananas will disappear from the menu. So will all imported tropical fruit. But we lived without them before and we can again.

    • industrial farming has to go. The Fonterra business model is ludicrous, even in a capitalist society; in Bill McKibben’s harsh new Eaarth, it has no place.

    • nor has the whole capitalist system of growth. We need to think small, non-profit (ie – service) and local.

    • I may be criticised for saying this – and perhaps deservedly so – but in the mass migrations which have already started and will continue, NZ is particularly well insulated. At the moment people are moving north into Europe (and to a lesser extent into USA) but they’ll also stream southwards, in Africa, South America, from Indonesia and India into Australia. This country has more chance of closing its doors than most. We need to be prepared for these migrations! Think through the implications of this!

    • we need a government, like that of France, which commits to 100% electric cars by 2030 or some such date. Yes, too little, too late but still . . .; imported petrol won’t last forever, but the sun will.

    • every new house should be as self-sufficient as possible. Power companies should be compelled to promote solar power.

    • no new highways, but much investment in railways. Put the long-haul trucking companies out of business.

    We’re talking survival here, not convenience.

    I could go on – some further reading. Suggestions?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/true-north/2017/jul/17/neoliberalism-has-conned-us-into-fighting-climate-change-as-individuals

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans.html

    • Andre 1.1
      22 July 2017 at 6:45 am

      In case you weren’t aware, petrol and diesel can be synthesised from coal via the Fischer-Tropsch process. The Nazis did it when their oil supplies got squeezed, and South Africa has used it for a substantial part of their petrol and diesel to save buying oil from other countries.

      So we have to make a conscious choice to move away from petrol and diesel. Peak oil ain’t going to force it on us. Our choice is to either make petrol and diesel increasingly expensive via a rising carbon tax, or by some sort of regulatory decree.

      Or we can do the dumb lazy thing and just wait until renewable electricity and batteries are so much cheaper that there’s no longer any reason to use liquid fuels (except for aviation where their energy density is absolutely crucial and will hopefully come from biofuels).

    • AsleepWhileWalking 1.2
      22 July 2017 at 7:37 am

      I agree with you on the mass migration to NZ, but I was thinking more terror, rapid demographic changes caused by the influx of millions of refugees in Europe, + economic upheaval.

      I tell myself at least I am already here while I can’t afford my rent. Or my car and public transport is worse. Or medical treatment. Yay NZ.

      FFS I’m not even on the bottom of the heap.

    • AsleepWhileWalking 1.3
      22 July 2017 at 7:43 am

      Electric cars are not the karma free alternatives you imagine them to be.

      Look up “Blood Cobalt” and you can read about how children are used as slave labor.
      ========================================
      All homes should be as self sufficient as possible. Of course this is easier if you actually own it, and you can afford to improve it. Apparently we have to be connected to the grid, which I object to.

      • alwyn 1.3.1
        22 July 2017 at 10:01 am

        “Apparently we have to be connected to the grid, which I object to.”

        What do you mean by this? You obviously have to be connected to the grid if you want the option of getting power supplied when you aren’t generating enough, or if you expect to sell your surplus to other users, but I am not aware of any law that requires you to have a connection or any reason to be connected if you don’t mind going without if your generator isn’t working.
        Is there something else you have in mind?

        • weka 1.3.1.1
          22 July 2017 at 10:16 am

          It’s not illegal to be off grid but some councils are putting serious pressure on new builds to put in grid infrastructure. To the point that people then can’t afford off grid solar.

          • alwyn 1.3.1.1.1
            22 July 2017 at 11:34 am

            “councils are putting serious pressure “.
            Well to hell with them.
            Do you have any names of such outfits in the Wellington area? I can at least complain there.
            If people will take entire responsibility for not having any power available for their use, and pay the entire connection cost if they change their mind I don’t see why they should have to have a connection.

            I suspect the Councils may be worried about tear sodden stories in the paper about how an electricity provider left them without power after a storm that knocked out their home generation equipment but looked after other people in the area whose lines had gone down under a falling tree or some such thing. You can imagine the sort of thing.
            “The electricity company left us to freeze for 3 days and we had a sick baby. They refused to supply us with even a small generator”.

            That is not to say they do, but without being able to contact a council I can’t see what other justification they could possibly have for their attitude.

            • Macro 1.3.1.1.1.1
              22 July 2017 at 12:08 pm

              Not just Councils – who place large compliance costs on instillations – but also regional Power Co’s notably in the Hawkes Bay Taupo and Rotorua districts.
              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503459&objectid=11675291

              • alwyn …
                22 July 2017 at 1:34 pm

                Hughes wasn’t complaining about charges being imposed on people who are totally off-grid.
                He is talking about people who are on grid but only draw a little power. That would typically be a times of high demand overall, like right now when it is cold and wet, without any sun to run their solar panels.
                They want to have the ability to draw a little bit of power but want the people who get all their power that way to subsidise them because the cost of attaching consumers to the grid is pretty well independent of how much power they draw.
                I have very little sympathy for them or for Hughes’ complaints.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  22 July 2017 at 2:22 pm

                  They want to have the ability to draw a little bit of power but want the people who get all their power that way to subsidise them because the cost of attaching consumers to the grid is pretty well independent of how much power they draw.

                  I’m pretty sure that if the line charge was a fixed price the people with solar power that’s connected to the grid wouldn’t complain at all. The people who don’t have it complain about that idea all the time because they believe that the amount should be dependent upon use rather than the simple fact of its existence. The amount of maintenance isn’t going to change after all.

                  TLDR: The real problem is that it’s not a fixed price but is variable dependent upon the amount of power you use.

                • Macro …
                  22 July 2017 at 3:02 pm

                  No you wouldn’t – but I didn’t expect you too.
                  The fact is, however, that for those in the Hawke’s Bay it is a huge disincentive to move to alternative systems.
                  In Australia, the Govts there have (in the past) given good incentives for people to install solar. In new subdivisions almost every second household now has both solar hot water systems, and PV. Most of these households are now pumping more electricity into the grid than they consume, (my family in WA are paid by the electric supplier even during the winter months! and theirs is only a 5000kw installation many are much bigger – I’ve seen a number of of 15,000 kw installations) thus saving the burning of coal upon which most of Australia’s grid depends.
                  While NZ’s main grid is powered by Hydro; adding wind and solar to the mix will mean that less drawdown on lake levels will be required. So although there will be times (such as storms) when solar will not deliver – the fact is that that is offset by the times when the solar is pumping energy into the grid reducing the drawdown on lake levels in dry weather.

                  • Andre …
                    22 July 2017 at 3:17 pm

                    Is WA a bit like Texas – everything’s bigger there? I mean, it’s about 5 sq m for 1 kW so if they’ve got 5000 kW then they’ve got around 2.5 hectares of panels. That’s truly heroic.

                    Please don’t tell me something boring like there was an extra k or 2 as typos.

          • Gristle 1.3.1.1.2
            22 July 2017 at 11:47 am

            Councils require utility services to be available at the boundary of subdivisions. But that is as far as I have seen Councils push connection.

            All grid connected PV systems in NZ have an invertor in them that detects for voltage on the network and open circuits when it detects voltage above or below certain thresholds.

            To your the homeowner this means that if the supply goes down on the network, then your PV system shuts down as well. So you will be without power jus to like everybody else.

            • Draco T Bastard 1.3.1.1.2.1
              22 July 2017 at 11:51 am

              That doesn’t sound right. It should have the detector and an isolator. When grid power goes down it needs to isolate from the grid so that work can be done on it but should maintain feeding the house itself.

              If it is isolating the house then what you have is poor design because the solar will keep generating anyway – it can’t actually be turned off.

              • Gristle …
                23 July 2017 at 2:27 am

                From memory As/NZS 4777.2 covers grid connected invertors and clearly requires an automatic open circuit requirement to prevent back feed (anti islanding) when grid supply falls below 180VAC.

                You would require an interlocked switch that isolates the installation from the network and then switches the mode of the invertor so that it is not required to detect grid supply voltage.

                I am unaware of systems that can do that. Let me know if they exist.

                The other side of the coin is that if the supply voltage increases beyond say 6% of nominal voltage of 230V then the invertor shuts down to stop the grid voltage from rising to unsafe levels.

            • weka 1.3.1.1.2.2
              22 July 2017 at 11:57 am

              The way I hear it is that people wanting to do off grid and are say building alt tech housing, councils are telling them to put the house on grid (I think because they assume house will eventually be sold and new people will apparently need grid). It’s not that the council can force that, but when you are in complex negotiations over consents for a range of alt tech, that pressure from council has an effect.

              Didn’t know about grid tied shutting down with the grid. That makes it even worse then because lots of people want off grid because they believe that the grid will be less reliable going forward.

          • James 1.3.1.1.3
            22 July 2017 at 2:58 pm

            How?

            Councils require that power to site is generally part of any subdivision – but hooking up power isn’t normally part of a building consent- so where are Council causing issue with this ?

            • Graeme 1.3.1.1.3.1
              22 July 2017 at 3:53 pm

              Just a slight guess, but you might have trouble satisfying the building inspector that you meet building code requirements for bathroom and kitchen ventilation without mains supply. You’d have to provide these 100% of the time, and without opening a window ’cause that will do your insulation. Just been through a compliance where they were a bit picky on that area.

      • Draco T Bastard 1.3.2
        22 July 2017 at 11:34 am

        All homes should be as self sufficient as possible. Of course this is easier if you actually own it, and you can afford to improve it.

        Actually, private ownership makes it harder because of that ‘afford’ BS that you mention.

        The ‘government’ can afford to build the factory to make the solar panels no matter how many it makes. It can afford to make enough houses without worrying about profits. It can afford to retrofit every house in the country with solar panels and insulation.

        It can afford to do these things because everybody will be paying the support cutting the cost per person down and not just a few who are wealthy enough and thus keeping the cost per person high. And, of course, there’s no dead-weight loss of profit.

        Apparently we have to be connected to the grid, which I object to.

        Being connected to the grid allows for a more efficient, less costly power generation infrastructure.

        You objecting to that just proves your ignorance on economics.

        • RedLogix 1.3.2.1
          22 July 2017 at 11:54 am

          DtB is correct. The best way to think of the grid is as a giant distributed battery. Absolutely there is every reason to have stand-alone solar generation onsite, but if you try to store enough onsite to cover say 99% of usage scenarios, then you either have to cut back your demand a fair bit, or buy a lot of battery.

          On the other hand if you only cover storage for say 80-90% of usage scenarios onsite, and share with the grid to cover the balance, the economics are suddenly a lot more appealing.

      • Andre 1.3.3
        22 July 2017 at 12:16 pm

        The main demand for cobalt in the current generation of EVs is for the lithium ion battery. Lithium isn’t particularly plentiful either. There’s a large number of battery researchers working on a wide range of alternatives that don’t require scarce materials.

        There’s also sourcing issues around other scarce materials such as rare-earths used in high-efficiency motors. Similarly there’s a lot of research going into reducing or eliminating those. If a major battery breakthrough happens and the last few percentage points of motor efficiency don’t matter quite so much, then the demand for those other elements will drop too.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.3.3.1
          22 July 2017 at 12:56 pm

          Lithium isn’t particularly plentiful either.

          Around 450 tonnes of the stuff gets washed down the Waikato every year from one geothermal field:

          The Wairakei geothermal field alone discharges about 445 t of lithium annually in geothermal waste water, into the Waikato River.

          Just need to find a way to catch it.

          There’s also sourcing issues around other scarce materials such as rare-earths used in high-efficiency motors.

          No longer an issue:

          TOKYO — Honda Motor Co. has developed a new electric motor for hybrid vehicles that tackles two top challenges in manufacturing the crucial drivetrain component: The high cost and uncertain supply of the rare-earth metals used in their powerful magnets.

          The key is a new motor not using any heavy rare-earth metals, such as dysprosium or terbium. The breakthrough frees Honda from being at the mercy of supply bottlenecks of the sparsely distributed metals and increasing prices as demand for them soars.

          Our steel production is some of the best in the world so I think we could produce that ourselves from our resources.

          If a major battery breakthrough happens and the last few percentage points of motor efficiency don’t matter quite so much, then the demand for those other elements will drop too.

          All of which seems to be happening including battery break-throughs:

          Stanford University Professor Hongjie Dai and colleagues have developed a high-performance aluminum battery.

          Stanford University scientists have invented the first high-performance aluminum battery that’s fast-charging, long-lasting and inexpensive. Researchers say the new technology offers a safe alternative to many commercial batteries in wide use today.

          And, yes, we have a fairly large bauxite deposit as well.

          • Andre 1.3.3.1.1
            22 July 2017 at 1:25 pm

            That aluminum ion battery doesn’t look likely to take over for transport, its energy density by weight is about a quarter of a lithium ion battery.

            http://www.nasdaq.com/article/the-aluminumion-battery-a-breakthrough-for-whom-cm471531

            I seem to recall other reports of different battery chemistries with all the good stuff – high energy density, high power density, non-flammability, low toxicity, no rare materials – being demonstrated in lab environments. I’ve yet to see reports of any transitioning to production, but I’m confident some of them will make it.

            That Honda electric motor is limited to temperatures quite a lot lower than a rare-earth based motor. So that limits the appeal somewhat for an EV since it will need to be a bigger and heavier motor and/or cooling system for the same performance. I seem to recall an article delving into actual testing, and it’s efficiency was down a wee bit compared to a rare earth motor. That’s a bit of a double-whammy combined with the reduced temperature performance, since if the efficiency drops, say from 95% to 90%, that’s double the heat that has to be taken away. But all of that won’t matter if there’s a big jump in battery performance.

            There’s plenty of lithium in the ocean too. Just needs some way to harvest it. Pacific Lithium had a go, although I’m not entirely sure how much of that was just financial shenanigans.

            • Draco T Bastard 1.3.3.1.1.1
              22 July 2017 at 1:46 pm

              That aluminum ion battery doesn’t look likely to take over for transport, its energy density by weight is about a quarter of a lithium ion battery.

              Needs more development but the important thing is that it works.

              The important bit about the Honda motor is that it reduces the need for the rare earths, which, although not exactly rare (they appear pretty much everywhere), aren’t exactly abundant either.

              There’s plenty of lithium in the ocean too.

              Estimated at 230 billion tonnes or 0.14 to 0.25 parts per million (ppm). The problem is filtering it out but that applies to the Waikato as well although the Waikato does seem to have a much higher concentration.

              • alwyn …
                22 July 2017 at 2:06 pm

                Your comments also apply to uranium.
                I have had people tell me that we cannot use nuclear power, not because they think it is unsafe but because uranium is very rare.
                There are about 4.5 billion tons of it in seawater. As usual the problem is in filtering it out. The cheapest proposed method would cost about three times as much as the current market price.

                • Andre …
                  22 July 2017 at 2:25 pm

                  I seem to recall an article saying the concentration in seawater is essentially saturated, so if the concentration drops significantly from the current value it will get replenished as more dissolves back in. If that’s correct. then the supply from seawater is a lot more than 4.5 billion tons.

                  Off the top of my head, the prices I’ve seen are about $50/lb from land-based mines and around $200/lb from seawater. Even at $200/lb, the cost of the uranium is a negligible part of the cost of generating nuclear power. The cost is in enriching the uranium, building and maintaining the plant, disposing of the waste.

                  Although there’s a smarter use of the depleted uranium from the enrichment than throwing it away as a dangerous waste which also throws away 99% or so of the uranium’s energy. Use it as fuel for a fast neutron reactor. Which burns up almost all the dangerous radioactive elements.

    • Cinny 1.4
      22 July 2017 at 10:27 am

      We also need to take control of food production, relying on outdoor growing will become a thing of the past, floods and temperatures etc will affect outdoor crops.

      I’d like to see hydroponic warehouses in the cities, before vegetables etc become even more expensive due to climate change and bad growing conditions.

      Here’s an example…

      “We can grow 200 percent more food per square foot than traditional agriculture, and without the use of chemical fertilizers,”

      http://www.ibtimes.com/indoor-farming-future-takes-root-abandoned-buildings-warehouses-empty-lots-high-rises-1653412

      • weka 1.4.1
        22 July 2017 at 12:15 pm

        I think we can make use of buildings to grow food, but high tech food systems are not resilient enough for the future we face.

        NZ is actually going to be reasonably well placed to relocalise food and that includes growing outdoors. The flooding issues we have in NZ are because we don’t design sustainable and resilient systems. I’m writing a post about that 🙂 but the gist is that a forest will cope with a shit load of water, a bare paddock or field of soy won’t. Likewise, much of the drought in NZ is caused by misuse of land so that in low rainfall times the land dries out. There are lots of ways to design so that doesn’t happen.

        Better that we design food systems to fit in with nature.

        • Draco T Bastard 1.4.1.1
          22 July 2017 at 12:40 pm

          I think we can make use of buildings to grow food, but high tech food systems are not resilient enough for the future we face.

          [Citation Needed]

          Better that we design food systems to fit in with nature.

          That is going to require high-tech.

          The flooding issues we have in NZ are because we don’t design sustainable and resilient systems.

          The flooding problems we have seem to be largely the result of the same as policies as Britain – cutting down far too many trees in all the worst places. We need to be replanting them and letting the wetlands regenerate.

          • weka 1.4.1.1.1
            22 July 2017 at 12:51 pm

            If you design food supply to be dependent on a building, mains power supply and industrially produced spare parts, what happens if an earthquake breaks it? What happens if a quake breaks it and collapses the NZ economy (e.g. if the Alpine Fault takes out Wellington and major infrastructure like the SI grid)? And collapses the buildings that the spare parts are in?

            There are lots of scenarios in which high tech systems fall over. Which isn’t to say we shouldn’t use high tech (I think we should where appropriate), but that we shouldn’t base our systems on it where there are such failure points.

            Regenag doesn’t need high tech.

            • Draco T Bastard 1.4.1.1.1.1
              22 July 2017 at 1:04 pm

              If you design food supply to be dependent on a building, mains power supply and industrially produced spare parts, what happens if an earthquake breaks it?

              The same thing that happens now when an earthquake breaks a farm? It goes offline and we’re short of food for awhile.

              This is why we do distributed production. One area may be affected but all others should still be going.

              Regenag doesn’t need high tech.

              Yes it does which is why I added the link to the definition of technology. You can’t make a regenerative farm without knowing what you’re doing.

              • weka …
                22 July 2017 at 1:16 pm

                “The same thing that happens now when an earthquake breaks a farm? It goes offline and we’re short of food for awhile.”

                But farms don’t break in the way that buildings do, and I’m not suggesting that we have farms that are that susceptible to quakes.

                If you lose high tech infrastructure you’re out of food production for quite some time not a short time.

                ‘Technology’ is not high tech. Humans have used technology for all time, I’m not talking about that. I’m talking about high tech. I think that’s fairly obvious from what I’m saying, not interested in a semantic argument.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  22 July 2017 at 2:14 pm

                  But farms don’t break in the way that buildings do, and I’m not suggesting that we have farms that are that susceptible to quakes.

                  They’re susceptible to earthquakes by default.

                  ‘Technology’ is not high tech.

                  Yeah, really, it is. That’s its very definition.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.5
      22 July 2017 at 11:26 am

      I may be criticised for saying this – and perhaps deservedly so – but in the mass migrations which have already started and will continue, NZ is particularly well insulated. At the moment people are moving north into Europe (and to a lesser extent into USA) but they’ll also stream southwards, in Africa, South America, from Indonesia and India into Australia. This country has more chance of closing its doors than most. We need to be prepared for these migrations! Think through the implications of this!

      QFT

      Been saying that for awhile myself. We will be closing our borders, we won’t have any choice. That’s part and parcel of living in a small area – we can only support a small number of people.

      every new house should be as self-sufficient as possible.

      Every new house should meet passive house specs.

      Power companies should be compelled to promote solar power.

      Actually, we need to get rid of the power corporations as part of that thinking small, non-profit that you mention.

  2. Andre 2
    22 July 2017 at 6:13 am

    😆

    Colbert immerses himself in the quest for the truth behind “that dossier”.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/stephen-colbert-russia-pee-room_us_59719f24e4b0e79ec1985d0d

  3. Andre 3
    22 July 2017 at 7:51 am

    Good job. Undercover cops on bikes educating drivers about how to behave around cyclists. Can we have some here too, please?

    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/bike-blog/2017/jul/21/undercover-police-target-london-drivers-who-pass-too-close-to-cyclists

  4. Philj 4
    22 July 2017 at 8:02 am

    A shocking report on RNZ Rural News explaining the dire situation of exploitation of growers, workers, everyone in the kiwifruit industry! Lol. If it wasn’t tragic it would be pure Monty Python. First four minutes. http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ruralnews/audio/201851920/midday-rural-news-for-21-july-2017

  5. Morrissey 5
    22 July 2017 at 9:18 am

    Brendan Cox got an easy ride this morning;
    these Blairite robots need to be challenged, not indulged.
    RNZ National, Saturday 22 July 2017, 8:09 a.m.

    This looked promising….

    8.09 Brendan Cox – In memory of Jo

    British Labour MP for the constituency of Batley and Spen, Jo Cox, was murdered on June 16th, 2016 as she met with constituents. A campaigner and an active member of her community, Jo was a wife, daughter, sister and mother of two, and her death galvanised calls for a return to civility in political discourse.

    Jo’s husband Brendan Cox has spoken out about growing xenophobia and intolerance across Europe in the wake of his wife’s murder, and has now written a book, Jo Cox: More in Common, which has just been released. Royalties from the book will go to the Jo Cox Foundation, which supports humanitarian causes around the world.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday

    However, as I suspected, this bloke proved to be a complacent and dishonest New Labour type—i.e., a Blairite. As such, he made sure to fire a couple of shots at Britain’s prime minister-in-waiting.

    Sadly, host Kim Hill chose to put aside her critical facilities and instead acted as nothing more than a warm and supportive sounding board. I wrote her the following email, which any of you listening to RNZ National after the 9 o’clock news would have heard her read aloud….

    Dear Kim,

    Brendan Cox made a partial list of the international crises that his late wife had spoken out about: “Syria, Darfur, the former Yugoslavia, and, you know, even back to the Holocaust.” For some reason he chose not to mention that she had also spoken out repeatedly against Israel’s crimes in Gaza and the Occupied Territories. Ironically, he then spoke of the way politicians “keep getting beaten down and think, if I keep quiet on this then I can move on to the next level.”

    I was also offended by his smoothly dishonest statement that Jeremy Corbyn’s refusal to back the Al Nusra-dominated Syrian opposition was not “nuanced”.

    Yours sincerely,

    Morrissey Breen
    Northcote Point

    • Gabby 5.1
      22 July 2017 at 2:55 pm

      Not really the point of the interview. (Sarcastic observations on right on zealotry deleted.)

      • Morrissey 5.1.1
        22 July 2017 at 3:10 pm

        Not really the point of the interview.

        Sorry, Gabby, but I’m mystified by that statement. Could you elaborate please?

        (Sarcastic observations on right on zealotry deleted.)

        And could you also explain what you mean by that? Thanks in anticipation.

        • Gabby 5.1.1.1
          22 July 2017 at 9:35 pm

          The interview was basically about the man’s relationship with his wife. You expected a lecture on his political opinions and how far he has strayed from your path of righteousness and virtue. Naturally you are disappointed. How could Ms Hill betray you like this. She must be set back on the path with some well chosen sage advice on the great work she has been chosen for. How much simpler it would be if you could send a list of questions and the desired conclusion, maybe a short prewritten closing address to the nation.

          • Morrissey 5.1.1.1.1
            23 July 2017 at 9:40 am

            The interview was basically about the man’s relationship with his wife.

            Sadly, however, the man broadened it out into a nasty attack on Jeremy Corbyn. Maybe you didn’t listen to the interview?

            You expected a lecture on his political opinions…

            He did indeed take the opportunity to indulge in his (poorly thought out and incoherent) political opinions.

            …and how far he has strayed from your path of righteousness and virtue.

            Well, yes, I think Labour Party people who smear as “not nuanced” the only decent leader they’ve had in fifty years are indeed straying from a path of righteousness and virtue. I was appalled by Brendan Cox’s cynical use of that nonsensical descriptor, which he clearly took from superior, nastier enemies of Corbyn such as Alistair Campbell and Martin Amis. [1]

            Naturally you are disappointed. How could Ms Hill betray you like this. She must be set back on the path with some well chosen sage advice on the great work she has been chosen for. How much simpler it would be if you could send a list of questions and the desired conclusion, maybe a short prewritten closing address to the nation.

            Sarcasm doesn’t enhance your message one little bit, Gabby. Could I suggest you now spend 40 minutes or so and actually listen to that farcical interview?

            [1] https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-29102015/#comment-1088122

            • Gabby 5.1.1.1.1.1
              23 July 2017 at 10:20 am

              I’ll need a copy of the exam questions and acceptably nuanced answers first, so I can practise writing them in my neatest script for you.

              • Morrissey …
                23 July 2017 at 3:02 pm

                I’m too busy to write any exam questions. You’ve passed Gabby, just for showing an interest.

  6. Belladonna 6
    22 July 2017 at 9:28 am

    Maybe to help, everyone could stop eating meat, dairy etc or face the consequences. This weather will get worse.

    [there’s a climate change post where you can talk about politicised climate change strategies that are likely to be controversial. Emergency threads aren’t the place to do that – weka]

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]

    • dukeofurl 6.1
      22 July 2017 at 3:12 pm

      Are you going to stop driving a vehicle and only use public transport for longer trips?Its certainly not meat production that is the critical factor in CO2, its fossil fuels

      • greywarshark 6.1.1
        22 July 2017 at 3:33 pm

        dukeofurl
        Stop for a moment, being reflective and wise about climate change. This is now a different subject where empathy and planning and rationality about present conditions applies. It is insulting to the people going through these troubles to meander off onto wondering about what to do for the future.

        • dukeofurl 6.1.1.1
          22 July 2017 at 3:48 pm

          The comments been moved now, I just thought someone was telling others what to do rather than follow an example of reducing carbon emissions.

          I can remember in my primary school days of rowboats in the street and so on. I think that has affected me to think of streams and rivers flooding potential still.
          Any flat area with a river nearby spells risk for me.

    • greywarshark 6.2
      22 July 2017 at 3:29 pm

      Stupid comment Belladonna. You are talking about methodology re climate change over months and years, the question is what can the people being hit do now and what do they need and what pressure can be brought on providers and exploiters so they release some of their cash for useful purposes of others. Where do you go to the spots on exploiters that are erroneous (sic) zones – tickle them, kick them in the nuts?

  7. Pat 7
    22 July 2017 at 9:41 am

    “My translation of that reserved science speak:

    we’ve missed the agreed targets that would allow BAU for Western civilisation
    the only thing to do now is drop fossil fuels rapidly
    high tech Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is very expensive, unreliable, risky, and probably implausible as a solution.
    low tech sequestration via natural cycles might buy us some time but on its own won’t be enough
    it’s our kids that will bear the brunt of this”

    my translation….we’re f**ked (and a hell of a lot sooner than predicted)

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]

    • One Two 7.1
      22 July 2017 at 10:28 am

      No, Pat

      Not a single soul on this planet ‘knows’ what the outcomes will be

      It is not possible to accurately predict what will eventuate

      While the message is important, my opinion is that the repetitive nature of these articles could begin to create unintended negativity…

      Keep it positive

      • Pat 7.1.1
        22 July 2017 at 4:54 pm

        and of course the expanded version in quotation marks is positive?…..i prefer succinct.

  8. Michael who failed Civics 8
    22 July 2017 at 10:00 am

    I blame the National Party for this. It’s all their fault.

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]

    • alwyn 8.1
      22 July 2017 at 11:43 am

      I quite agree that irrelevant comments should be moved to open mike but would you consider putting where it was moved from? Just to satisfy my curiosity.

      To be fair I suppose this particular comment could appear on almost any post on The Standard.
      Someone could comment on how they have an ingrowing toenail and someone else is going to blame it on the National Party.

      • weka 8.1.1
        22 July 2017 at 12:10 pm

        Too much work for moderators to do that. I’m already annoyed at the amount of moderating I’ve had to do on a Saturday morning.

  9. The decrypter 9
    22 July 2017 at 10:41 am

    Survival kit list for Natz .–Loot bag for banking scam details. trust details-(twice removed)-folded photo -B English, Locket -J Key. -Cattle prodder,-moving other homeless out of prime spots. Porridge and bagels-breakfast. Basic items only.

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]

    [I don’t have a problem with political commentary during emergencies per se, but better to not put them under posts about the disaster while it’s still active. Open Mike is always there – weka]

  10. Fustercluck 10
    22 July 2017 at 11:57 am

    “Zero tolerance of climate change denial or ‘we’re all going to die, it’s too late’ comments. ”

    Yep, that’s how to talk about science. Let’s limit the discussion to those we agree with.

    The term climate change denier is a political canard that has no meaning. Climate has always changed and always will. Labeling someone who disagrees with your worldview as a ‘denier’ is just intellectual cowardice.

    What is wrong with stipulating doom? What harm does it cause you? If you do not like it you can just ignore it!

    Moderating comments to avoid abusive behavior is fine. Keeping on topic fine. But treating dissent the same way that the “Consensus” treated Galileo is just stupid, antidemocratic and counterproductive.

    There are lots of reasons we should be acting to reduce environmental impacts and improve the condition of our biosphere. Not one single one of these is zero tolerance for diverse opinions.

    Science, especially complex science, has been shown to be “wrong” many times and the truth is often surprising. If you close your mind due to “Settled science” or “consensus” then you are a fool. No credible scientist would EVER do this.

    Harden up and embrace debate, even scary “denier” debate. If you are right about anthropogenic climate change, it will be your ability to bring “deniers” into the fold and not ostracizing them, that will be a huge part of saving the planet.

    Wonder if this’ll get me a ban?

    PS

    Interesting that your spell checker does not even recognize “anthropogenic”

    [TheStandard: A moderator moved this comment to Open Mike as being off topic or irrelevant in the post it was made in. Be more careful in future.]

    [of course it will earn you a ban. However important you feel your argument is, you obviously failed to understand what zero tolerance means and instead believe that it’s ok to derail threads and waste my time as a moderator on a Saturday morning. If you had put your comment in Open Mike, I might have replied and rebutted your argument, but the level of disrespect you just demonstrated to the authors/moderators here means you’re out. 6 months – weka]

    • Penny Bright 10.1
      22 July 2017 at 9:13 pm

      A six month ban Weka?

      In my opinion, as someone who has been arrested MANY times in defence of freedom of expression that seems a bit harsh.

      Meant in a polite and respectful way 🙂

      Kind regards

      Penny Bright.

      • weka 10.1.1
        22 July 2017 at 11:34 pm

        They obviously were aware that they could get a ban and didn’t care. Like I said, they can say what the like (within the rules) in Open Mike, but I’m not spending time writing posts so people can trash the discussions under them. If they’d commented in OM, I probably would have argued back. But they didn’t. They chose to poke the bear and the bear said fuck off and stop wasting my time. The reason I have zero tolerance is because it’s the most important issue of all time. The internet’s a big place, if they want to dissent that then do it somewhere else. No-one is stopping that or their freedom of expression. .

    • ropata 10.2
      22 July 2017 at 10:59 pm

      Climate change denial is not just pig ignorant it is dangerous and destructive and gives a free pass to big polluters to carry on their (highly profitable) filthy ways. A well earned ban. Don’t waste time and energy on belligerent fools.

  11. Draco T Bastard 11
    22 July 2017 at 12:31 pm

    Why the moaning? If anything can halt capitalism’s fat cats, it’s Brexit

    But the left needs to be very careful about running with the idea that business should be able to veto decisions made by the electorate. If Labour had won the recent election, Corbyn would have had a mandate for extensive nationalisation, ending austerity and higher taxation on companies and the well-off. Big business would certainly have cut up rough about all that. There would have been warnings from the Confederation of British Industry about its members moving thousands of jobs out of the country. Would those calling for a second EU referendum be calling for another general election so voters could think again about supporting such a dangerously radical policy? Probably not.

    Which is a valid point that needs to be taken into account. Our parliament should be setting laws that the populace wants and not what business wants. Business gets to operate in the environment that we want.

  12. The Chairman 12
    22 July 2017 at 12:32 pm

    Jacinda Ardern stated (on the Nation today) Labour is a party that believes in full employment, yet she says they’ve set an unemployment target rate of 4%. And unlike the Greens, Labour aren’t committed to increasing benefit payment rates. However, they are only .3% below National’s employment projections.

    Far from being bold. Yet, when asked why Labour didn’t take a more bolder stance (in its alternative budget) Jacinda insisted it was bold, pointing to canceling tax cuts etc…

    http://www.newshub.co.nz/home/shows/2017/07/interview-jacinda-ardern.html

    Bold enough or should Labour have been bolder?

    • In Vino 12.1
      22 July 2017 at 1:28 pm

      Congratulations to Labour on being both bold and leaving space to be bolder in times to come. Deft manoeuvring! Onwards and upwards! Cast down the dithering doubters like the Chairman!

      • The Chairman 12.1.1
        22 July 2017 at 1:56 pm

        .3% is far from a bold difference. Thus, claiming it’s bold is an acceptance of this lowering of the bar.

        Cast down the apologists. It’s time to hold their feet to the fire. Turn Labour left.

        • McFlock 12.1.1.1
          22 July 2017 at 2:37 pm

          Actually aiming for a realistic change in the near future is a big difference from “projecting” (hoping) that things will get better.

          What economists expect and what actually happens frequently disagree.

          • The Chairman 12.1.1.1.1
            22 July 2017 at 3:15 pm

            Projections will be based on economic analysis, thus it’s more than just “hoping”.

            And while projections may not always be correct, it’s good to see you believe 4% is a “realistic change” as 4.3% (the projection) isn’t far off.

            Hence, not much difference at all.

            • McFlock 12.1.1.1.1.1
              23 July 2017 at 7:30 pm

              Economic analysis is largely hope and religion, especially when projecting to a decimal point.

              But the difference is that if it looks like that 4% isn’t being achieved, Labour will change it’s policy to get that 4%. If a projection isn’t achieved, the nats will just say that the next projection is soooo much better. As they tend to do.

        • Gabby 12.1.1.2
          22 July 2017 at 2:59 pm

          When unemployment is so low, it’s shitloads chairmie.

          • amirite 12.1.1.2.1
            22 July 2017 at 3:42 pm

            When 1 hour of work a week counts as employment, figures can look better than they really are.

          • The Chairman 12.1.1.2.2
            22 July 2017 at 3:47 pm

            You’ve got that the wrong way around, Gabby. The lower the number the less significant the difference is.

            • Incognito 12.1.1.2.2.1
              22 July 2017 at 8:21 pm

              Gabby is correct.

              In any case, 0.3% represents a fixed number of people relative to the total number of people who make up the workforce regardless of how many are unemployed. The extreme situation (reductio ad absurdum is when the unemployment rate is 0.3% and the target is to lower this by, you guessed it, 0.3%. But according to you it is an insignificant difference!?

              You also fail to acknowledge that tackling the long tail in unemployment is extremely hard; the longer you have been unemployed the harder it is to find and get work and these unfortunate people form a large proportion of the long tail. The long tail is always where things get progressively (exponentially) hard(er).

              • The Chairman …
                23 July 2017 at 8:42 am

                “In any case, 0.3% represents a fixed number of people relative to the total number of people who make up the workforce regardless of how many are unemployed.”

                In which case, you’re also claiming Gabby is incorrect. There is no difference.

                “The extreme situation (reductio ad absurdum is when the unemployment rate is 0.3% and the target is to lower this by, you guessed it, 0.3%. But according to you it is an insignificant difference!? ”

                I said less significant not insignificant, but you’re correct. My bad. The deference is the same and not “shitloads” as Gabby claimed.

                It wasn’t that I failed to acknowledge it. How difficult it is to achieve merely wasn’t part of the discussion.

                Nevertheless, do you believe Labour should have taken a more bolder stance?

                With all that requires doing, are you happy less is being done (over a longer time frame) as they plan to maintain a $4 billion plus surplus?

                • Incognito …
                  23 July 2017 at 1:17 pm

                  I’m trying to see the whole picture, the full context, which is impossible because not all policies have been released yet AFAIK although the major ones are out now I assume.

                  Assuming that Labour and the Green Party will form a coalition I think the current joined policy framework is a step in the right direction but still quite a timid one given the baseline from where we’re starting.

                  TOP seems to have a few economic ideas that I quite like prima facie and it would be an interesting ‘marriage’ between TOP, the Greens, and Labour except that GM does not seem to be much of a team-player to me.

                  • The Chairman …
                    23 July 2017 at 2:11 pm

                    “I’m trying to see the whole picture, the full context, which is impossible because not all policies have been released yet …”

                    At this stage the Greens are being bolder and it’s a real shame Labour couldn’t have just stepped up a little more. Offering voters not only a chance to change the Government but also presenting them with a more unified front and a larger margin of difference. Which I believe is required to get them over the line.

                    We’ve yet to hear Labour’s Kiwisaver stance for this election.

                    And if it hasn’t been altered, the uncapped variable savings rate could potentially take away a good slice of the fiscal benefits being handed out thus far.

                    TOP largely fails to appeal to me.

                    • Incognito …
                      23 July 2017 at 5:40 pm

                      It’s not necessarily about being perceived the boldest – surely the Master Populist Sir Winston wins this hands down, every time – but about points of real difference as well as common policies and how well these are articulated, as you said.

                      I feel the PR for want of a better word is fuzzy and muddled.

                      I also thought there were some interesting possible intersections between Labour’s Future of Work and TOP’s UBI policy but Labour’s former showroom policy has not yet made it to production, unfortunately. In fact, there’s an eerie silence surrounding what could (have) become a signature policy for Labour. Maybe they need more time or maybe they’re too timid …

  13. Muttonbird 13
    22 July 2017 at 3:47 pm

    Ever notice how the National Party like to trumpet intentions like increasing immunisation rates and reducing communicable disease?

    Well, here’s another example of it just being an exercise in hot air marketing as if the only thing important to the National Party is the message that they are doing something rather than the actual outcomes. Plainly the outcomes are very different. See also National cancelling their own targets when they are not met, or reframing the target as ‘ambitious’.

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/335603/mumps-outbreak-169-infected-in-auckland

  14. Bearded Git 14
    22 July 2017 at 6:27 pm

    My rolling average of the last 3 Roy Morgans:

    Lab/Gr 42.0
    Lab/Gr/NZF 51.0
    Nats 44.2
    Nats/ACT/MP 46.5
    Nats/ACT/MP/NZF 55.5
    NZF 9.0

    If Winnie goes as part of the 4-headed monster it’s 55.5 versus 42.0

    If Winnie goes with the Lab/Gr bloc it’s 51.0 versus 46.5

    Both would give safe majorities, especially as Hone will probably win TTT for the Left. National is polling 44% under English rather than more like 48% under Key and that is after a budget bounce.

    The election campaign has seen both Labour and the Greens come out fighting-lots of new policies being put across well. A clear choice for the voters that is not reflected in the above numbers. My theory is that English will get less than 40% for the Nats; the question is where will that 5% or more will go.

    • Alan 14.1
      22 July 2017 at 7:10 pm

      maybe look at a few polls other than Roy Morgan or UMR for a more realistic picture

  15. Penny Bright 15
    22 July 2017 at 9:15 pm

    DID ‘SIR’ JOHN KEY PERSONALLY PROFIT FROM BEING NZ PRIME MINISTER?

    Looks like it – IMO – to the tune of an extra $10 million from 2008 – 2016?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11893239

    So how much of ‘Sir’ John Key’s extra $10 million increase in wealth from the time he became Prime Minister of NZ, to when he left, (2008 – 2016) was because of his arguably hugely increased potential, in my considered opinion, to benefit from ‘insider trading’?

    Seen this?

    “Is John Key shonky?”

    A video clip (10 mins) of my complaints to Police, the SFO and finally a private prosecution of John Key in 2008, over his undisclosed financial interests in TranzRail.

    (None of the above got ONE sentence in the NZ Herald.)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFTYZVQo-A8&sns=em

    Penny Bright

    ‘Anti-privatisation / anti-corruption campaigner.

    2017 Independent candidate for Tamaki.

  16. ropata 16
    22 July 2017 at 11:07 pm

    David Fisher is a gem, his latest piece in the Herald:
    Judge: Dotcom spied on two months longer than previously admitted


    The illegal spying which earned Kim Dotcom an apology from former Prime Minister Sir John Key went on two months longer than previously admitted, according to a High Court judgment.

    The revelation – if accurate – would open a can of worms over sworn admissions the GCSB has made in the High Court and the Court of Appeal over assistance given to police ahead of the FBI-inspired 2012 raid which saw Dotcom and three others arrested.

    It could also raise the possibility of a fresh apology to Dotcom because Key’s apology was in the context of spying from December 16, 2011 through to January 20, 2012.

    Questions have been asked of Prime Minister Bill English but he has not responded. A spokesman for GCSB Minister Chris Finlayson referred questions to the GCSB, even though previous issues around the illegal spying have been handled at ministerial level.

    The dates provided in the judgment from Justice Gilbert – released yesterday – extended the range of the spying operation.

    Justice Gilbert stated the GCSB “has admitted unlawfully intercepting private communications of Kim and Mona Dotcom (the Dotcoms) and Bram van der Kolk during the period from 16 December 2011 to 22 March 2012“.

    Dotcom texted comment, saying: “I don’t know what to say any more. Speechless. It’s sad for New Zealand what this Government keeps getting away with. Time and time again. No moral compass.“

    Indeed.
    “Sir” John Key, what a guy