The environmental open letter to political party leaders

91 comments on “The environmental open letter to political party leaders ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Incognito 1

   3 October 2017 at 9:38 am

   Interesting development for two reasons: 1) the omission of David Seymour; 2) the single focus on the environment.
2. Robert Guyton 2

   3 October 2017 at 9:40 am

   Posted this to all the Environment Southland councillors yesterday. I noticed Guy Salmon’s name in that list.
   • weka 2.1

     3 October 2017 at 11:34 am

     I noticed that too. An interesting example of people working together across political spectrums
3. Robert Guyton 3

   3 October 2017 at 9:43 am

   Forest & Bird and Kevin Hague frighten them the most, post-Ruataniwha – “they don’t play the game (collaboration), they run straight to the Environment Court when they don’t get what they want!!” If National somehow remains as Government, watch them destroy that court.
4. cleangreen 4

   3 October 2017 at 11:00 am

   Road freight transport must be at the front of New Zealand’s ambitious plan on how to reduce their emissions.

   Now under National almost everything that is planned is roads, – and more roads for more trucks and is causing our transport emissions to climb.

   Use of rail is needed to reduce them now, as we need an ambitious plan on how to reduce them. One tonne carried one km by rail uses 5 to 8 times less fuel.

   Climate change emissions from rail freight is reported to be only a fraction of road freight also. – (‘Carrying freight by rail results in an 80% cut in CO2 emissions per Kilogram carried compared to road haulage.’)

   https://www.foe.co.uk/sites/default/files/downloads/travelling_rail_better.pdf

   In 1998 rail produced only 1% of the U.K’s total emissions, road transport meanwhile accounted for 23%

   Climate change – Freight Transport

   The majority of our freight in the travels by road.

   Switching some of this to rail would result in a dramatic reduction in CO2 emissions. Carrying freight by rail results in an 80% cut in CO2 emissions per Kilogram carried compared to road haulage.

   This climate change policy may be useful it acheiving this.

   CLIMATE

   “There must be a more structured and transparent approach to tackling the greatest challenge of our time – climate change. New Zealand’s emissions have continued to climb and we need an ambitious plan on how to reduce them. Transformative change is required through a new law to establish a statutory carbon budgeting process overseen by an independent Climate Commission to plan, monitor and report on the transition to net zero by 2050. Anything less betrays this and future generations.”
5. timeforacupoftea 5

   3 October 2017 at 11:23 am

   Come on guys elections are over, back to doing nothing, the New Zealand way.

   New hospitals, major roads, oil and gas exploration and major exploration for deposits of Neodymium- Praseodymium (NdPr) rare earths etc.

   NdPr is the critical raw material used in the production of high-strength permanent magnets used extensively in the automotive, clean energy, electronics and healthcare sectors.
   Permanent magnets are used in electric vehicles (EVs), wind turbines, portable electronic devices, clean energy and healthcare sectors.

   Get exploring be self-sufficient !
   • left_forward 5.1

     3 October 2017 at 2:43 pm

     Come on timeforacupoftea – what are you actually saying here? – try using a few verbs here and there so we don’t have to guess whether you are are proposing further rape and pillage of the environment or perhaps you are being obtusely ironic.
6. Sparky 6

   3 October 2017 at 11:33 am

   Yes indeed. Interestingly a survey of Trump supporters found the majority actually supported sustainable Green solutions for fuel and transport. Its just common sense not a right/left issue.
   • weka 6.1

     3 October 2017 at 11:36 am

     Well it’s left/right in the sense that the left are the ones actually doing something and the right are the ones doing the things that are damaging the environment. It’s true that there are RW people that want the environment protected and cleaned up, but it does beg the question of why they’re RW in that case.
     • Sparky 6.1.1

       3 October 2017 at 11:40 am

       I think you need to look at why 12% of democratic party voters switched to Trump after Clinton’s “victory” in the primaries to answer that question.
       • weka 6.1.1.1

         3 October 2017 at 12:07 pm

         I don’t see Republican/Dem the same as R/L. But sure, the environment isn’t that important to lots of voters.
     • Sparky 6.1.2

       3 October 2017 at 11:41 am

       Keep in mind too that not all right leaning parties everywhere are anti environment. Germany being a case in question.
       • weka 6.1.2.1

         3 October 2017 at 12:05 pm

         Sure, but Trump supporters still voted for Trump. The environment isn’t that important.
7. alwyn 7

   3 October 2017 at 2:53 pm

   If the Green Party MPs were as principled as their party members tell us they should seriously look at the article David Farrar posted a day or two ago.
   https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2017/10/how_a_national-green_coalition_could_work.html

   I realise he may only be trying to stir the pot but he is close enough to National that the Green MPs should consider the prospect. The list of things he suggested are vastly more helpful to the environment than anything the Green party has achieved in the last 20 years, and vastly more than they look like achieving in the next 20.
   At least if they talked to National they would discover whether Farrar is simply flying his own kite.

   If they could get such an agenda, and if Labour wouldn’t match it, or New Zealand First won’t allow Labour to match it, they should go into such a coalition with National. At worst National could renege sometime in the next 3 years and they could then withdraw and regroup. They would at least be able to say they had tried and weren’t just interested in keeping their cushy seats in the House.
   If Labour were willing to give them the same things they can, as many of their party members no doubt prefer go with Labour. They should demand at least the same as National are willing to give them though. They are most unlikely to get anything remotely close to it if they don’t try though.

   I realise that many of their party members, blinded by a rather irrational dislike of the National party would disapprove. The really principled stand by the MPs would be to go ahead anyway. They should tell the party members that this is essential for the future of New Zealand. If the party wants to disown them it can do so. It can expel them and ensure they are not on the party list for the next election.

   They cannot however expel the elected MPs from Parliament until that date.

   Principle would say that fixing the environment is vastly more important than continuing their own political career and they will happily relinquish more years of non-productive non-entity for something that is important NOW.

   A few, very few politicians have followed the path of doing right, rather than just popular things. A notable example was Lyndon Johnson and the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s. He knew, and said, that it would destroy his own prospects and the prospects of his beloved Democratic Party in the US South but he went ahead anyway because it was the right thing to do. As he predicted it destroyed the Democratic Party in the South. Things are certainly not perfect for the Black people of the US but they are vastly better than they were in 1965. Let us see whether the New Zealand Green Party is willing to do the same as Lyndon and sacrifice their own future in the House for a greater good.

   If, after 3 years they are no longer MPs the current MPs will be able to console themselves with the words Dickens created in “A Tale of Two Cities”.
   “It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known.”
   • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1

     3 October 2017 at 2:57 pm

     What’s stopping National doing what’s right for the environment in the first place?

     Why is it a bargaining chip/hostage for you people?
     • Robert Guyton 7.1.1

       3 October 2017 at 3:01 pm

       Their culture. What they are trying to do now, is buy a conscience, as they presently lack one. But consciences are cultured and developed, not imported.
       • Steve 7.1.1.1

         3 October 2017 at 11:08 pm

         I feel Kevin Hague combined with Forest and Bird ,possibly cannot be trusted.My own experience is that Kevin might have little, or perhaps no conscience.Seemed willing to lie through his teeth, so long as doing so, he also feels he might get my vote.He had me fooled before.Why would i feel i can trust people like that ever again?. I purposely changed and voted against the green party these last election.

         Future environment conservation needs take on a more pragmatic holistic approach.Plans need to be also somewhat considerate of land owners who would hope to be able to remain financially able to stay actively involved in environment conservation

         Very little use having NZ environment concerns run entirely toward enabling arm chair conservationist demands. Didn’t always work out so well in the past?.Unlikely it will do in future either
     • alwyn 7.1.2

       3 October 2017 at 3:26 pm

       If by “you people” you mean the National Party Please don’t think it refers to me. I am not, and never have been a member of any political party.

       “Why is it a bargaining chip”.
       Because the whole art of politics is bargaining. If you don’t understand, and accept that you won’t be going anywhere.

       Why does it matter, anyway? Is the preservation, and restoration of the natural environment important or isn’t it? If it is really that important you try and do it, whoever proposes ideas. The important thing is that it gets done surely, not who first thought of it? As Harry Truman said.
       “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.”

       You, and anyone else who says that it is up to National to try and persuade the Greens, seems to be saying that they don’t really care whether anything happens. They just want to get the bragging rights
       That is as silly as Andrew Little scrapping one of his parties policies, to change the New Zealand flag because John Key had suggested it. That was it. How stupid can you be?

       If the Green Party want to help restore the environment they should grab any chance they can get. Who cares who makes the phone call, as long as it is made?
       • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.2.1

         3 October 2017 at 3:31 pm

         Why does it matter, anyway?

         It demonstrates that any commitment the National Party makes is fleeting and driven by expediency. This fatally compromises any potential gains that could be made.

         As Matthew Hooton has been saying: the National Party’s word is worthless.
         • alwyn 7.1.2.1.1

           3 October 2017 at 3:41 pm

           If by fleeting you mean three years you have a rather different view of time than I do. In three years, if National were really willing to give the Greens something like what Farrar was suggesting a great deal could be accomplished.
           As I say, if National really reneged on the deal the Green MPs could always withdraw from the C&S agreement.
           • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1.2.1.1.1

             3 October 2017 at 3:47 pm

             It seems that Weka can be bothered explaining it to you in long form. I can’t.
             • weka …

               3 October 2017 at 4:07 pm

               At the moment I can’t tell if he’s trolling or really this ignorant about the Greens and green politics. It is tedious though, so feel free to mock.
               • Once was Tim …

                 3 October 2017 at 8:19 pm

                 I suspect its both
               • cleangreen …

                 4 October 2017 at 7:15 am

                 Weka – At the moment I can tell he’s trolling as he is stubborly ignoring our reasoning.
                 • weka …

                   4 October 2017 at 1:23 pm

                   True, or astroturfing, but he’s not winning any of his arguments either.
               • tracey …

                 4 October 2017 at 1:23 pm

                 He and Wayne appear to be able to read but not to understand. The members decide not the MPs and on what basis can they trust National. To say if Nats let them down Green can withdrew C and S but we all know that will force another election and the Greens will be seen as the baddies.

                 alwyn is still predicting Greens demise notwithstanding their results since 1999 which have been pointed out over and over.
           • weka 7.1.2.1.1.2

             3 October 2017 at 4:05 pm

             “If by fleeting you mean three years you have a rather different view of time than I do.”

             Duh. Go read some actual green politics. We’re talking intergenerational timeframes.

             “a great deal could be accomplished.”

             And yet you can’t name any of these great things. Which suggests to me that your whole argument is part of the general RW push currently to undermine the left esp the Greens. I’m certainly not seeing anything genuine in it.
           • tracey 7.1.2.1.1.3

             4 October 2017 at 1:20 pm

             Please set out your argument, with supporting evidence, for why Greens can trust National?
       • weka 7.1.2.2

         3 October 2017 at 3:38 pm

         ‘You people’ in that context could also be National voters, and people who are promoting a N/G government. Or RWers. Basically anyone on the right who is currently an uber hypocrite because now that National needs power you suddenly care about the environment.

         Your argument has no moral authority and fails on pretty much every point. I’ll just pick this one out – the Greens take a long term view of environmental protection. There is literally no advantage to gaining a few beads and blankets in a three year term if it destroys their decades long and ongoing ability to work on environmental issues. I can’t see anything that the Greens could gain that couldn’t be undone by National at a later stage. On issues like CC or river protection, the strategies needed have to last decades.

         Which of course you would know if you actually gave a shit about ecologies. But thanks for the reminder that ‘environment’ is undergoing a process of appropriation by neoliberalism, I should do a post on that.
         • alwyn 7.1.2.2.1

           3 October 2017 at 3:52 pm

           “On issues like CC or river protection, the strategies needed have to last decades.”.
           Sure they do. However can you please tell me what the Green Party has actually accomplished, by their own actions, in the last twenty years they have had members in the New Zealand Parliament? At least they could get something useful accomplished in 3 years that would be very hard to reverse.

           Look at what Roger Douglas did in only three years. None of it has been reversed in 30 years and nobody looks like reversing anything major about it in the next 30 years.
           Sure a few people rant about it but can you really see any Government coming into being that is really likely to markedly change it?

           Take what you can get when you can get it. After all
           “Perfection is the enemy of perfectly adequate”
           or perhaps more chilling, from Voltaire.
           “Perfection is the enemy of the good”.
           • McFlock 7.1.2.2.1.1

             3 October 2017 at 4:02 pm

             Roger Douglas wasn’t the minority coalition partner. He was an FPP dictator.

             As for what the Greens have done, you missed this comment, obviously.

             Perfection is not the only enemy of the good. National is the enemy of both.
             • alwyn …

               3 October 2017 at 6:21 pm

               I listened to the clip.
               Not a spectacular display is it?
               The main item was the anti-smacking bill apparently.
               • McFlock …

                 3 October 2017 at 9:19 pm

                 Given that your comment on it is purely subjective, I guess it says more about you than any achievements of the greens.
           • weka 7.1.2.2.1.2

             3 October 2017 at 4:02 pm

             “However can you please tell me what the Green Party has actually accomplished, by their own actions, in the last twenty years they have had members in the New Zealand Parliament? ”

             Apart from managing to get the environment and CC as premier election issues including getting Labour to make them priorities?

             “At least they could get something useful accomplished in 3 years that would be very hard to reverse.”

             Such as? Because all I’m seeing is a bunch of blowhard. I’ve yet to see a credible argument for what the Greens could gain that would last. Notable is that in your multiple comments here you haven’t once said what those gains could be.

             “Look at what Roger Douglas did in only three years. None of it has been reversed in 30 years and nobody looks like reversing anything major about it in the next 30 years.”

             FFS, Douglas was the finance minister in a government that had 3 terms of making radical changes. And they were followed by a government that largely agreed with the economic reforms. None of that is similar to the current situation.
             • alwyn …

               3 October 2017 at 6:19 pm

               For crying out loud.
               Did you read the link to Farrar’s blog. That surely gave sufficient detail.
               As for you comment about Roger Douglas.
               “FFS, Douglas was the finance minister in a government that had 3 terms of making radical changes”
               Can I suggest that your memory of the time is extremely flawed.
               That Government lasted only two terms, not three.
               Douglas was Minister of Finance for only four years of that time, and spent the final one of those four years having rows with Lange, who had fallen under the influence of his speechwriter, later wife, and had totally lost his nerve.
               The reforms all took place in the first term and were mainly in 1986 and 1987.
               • weka …

                 3 October 2017 at 10:32 pm

                 “Did you read the link to Farrar’s blog.”

                 Of course not. He’s a paid shill for a party that is extremely destructive to the environment and who was part of Dirty Politics. If *you think there are policies gains to be had from National, it’s on you to make the case.

                 Irrespective of the mistake in my comment, the comparison between this situation and then is ridiculous, unless you are suggesting that National gives the Greens the same kind of powers that Douglas and co had. By all means make that argument, would love to see it.
                 • alwyn …

                   3 October 2017 at 11:32 pm

                   ” ‘Did you read the link to Farrar’s blog.’
                   Of course not.”

                   Then how can you possibly discuss what I am saying if you won’t read what someone who is close to the National Party suggests?
                   It won’t make you break out in boils or suchlike to follow a link to Kiwiblog, will it?
                   Read what Farrar has said and then you should be able to at least make an informed comment on the question of “that National gives the Greens the same kind of powers that Douglas and co had”.

                   I’m not in a position to make the argument you know. I’m not privy to National Party thought. Farrar is close to them and he may, and I only say MAY, be suggesting this on behalf of the National Party.
                   The only way to find out is for Shaw to talk to them.
                   Quibbling over who should ring who is stupid, if the situation claimed in the letter is true. Tell Shaw to do what is required, not what merely feeds his ego.
                   Green supporters on this blog tell us that the Green Party is one of principle, not just as a collector of baubles. Well demonstrate it. If the price of doing so is his own political career so what? Look at what Nelson Mandela’s principles cost him.

                   Douglas was one of those people who put his beliefs ahead of his career. He said at one point that doing the things New Zealand needed was much more important than just getting another term in Government. Whether you agree, or disagree, with him he will be remembered in New Zealand Political History. Do you think the current Green MPs will be remembered when their answer about what to do about what they say is a critical problem is to say “Bill has to call me first”?
                   • weka …

                     3 October 2017 at 11:40 pm

                     There is active Dirty Politics going on around the whole N/G thing. I don’t give a fuck about what DPF says beyond understanding his part in that. By all means align yourself with that, it’s not really a surprise that you do.

                     “I’m not in a position to make the argument you know”

                     Yes, I do know. Basically your whole argument here is that a propagandist for National says the GP should consider a deal with National because. Your own rationales all boil down to the Greens destroying themselves.

                     Why should anyone take you seriously? That’s a rhetorical question.
                   • tracey …

                     4 October 2017 at 1:25 pm

                     Have you read the Green Charter, policies and Rules? Then how can you engage in a discussion about a Coalition deal?
                   • tracey …

                     4 October 2017 at 1:28 pm

                     You accuse Shaw of having an ego preventing him from discussing with Nats ( which is not tge reason), then one thing you suggest is great about Douglas is history will remember him ( which is about ego).
           • Robert Guyton 7.1.2.2.1.3

             3 October 2017 at 6:35 pm

             “Sure a few people rant about it but can you really see any Government coming into being that is really likely to markedly change it?”
             A Green one could give it a decent thrashing, I’m betting.
           • Incognito 7.1.2.2.1.4

             3 October 2017 at 9:00 pm

             Perfection of means and confusion of goals seem to characterize our age. If we desire sincerely and passionately the safety, the welfare and the free development of the talents of all men, we shall not be in want of the means to approach such a state.

             Albert Einstein
             • tracey …

               4 October 2017 at 1:28 pm

               Bravo!
           • cleangreen 7.1.2.2.1.5

             4 October 2017 at 7:29 am

             “Look at what Roger Douglas did in only three years. None of it has been reversed in 30 years and nobody looks like reversing anything major about it in the next 30 years.”

             Bad choice of words Alwyn used here as seen in Las Vagas we saw a sick rich man using guns against inocent people even though he was so rich he could buy his own island retreat to keep him away from us normal inocent people but failed to do what he should’ve done.

             The wrongful tact Alwyn made to complete the connection to Alwyn’s logic was made when he used ‘ractional’ to say that Roger Douglas was seemingly doing what was ‘normal’ as in the 30yrs hence it is still acceptable as nobody has reversed it since.

             The fatal flaw here is that like the las vagas Madman keeping 23 guns in his home Roger Douglas was widely reported to have a gun stored under his bed also. There is the connection, and Alwyn is wrong to make Roger Douglas out to be a hero of our economy without questioning his sanity firstly, as it appears he feared his own saftey then when he gutted our state services and aset us up for future social unrest.
             • alwyn …

               4 October 2017 at 9:20 am

               “without questioning his sanity firstly”.
               I’m afraid that after that rant of yours I think serious questions about your own sanity are in order.
         • Robert Guyton 7.1.2.2.2

           3 October 2017 at 6:26 pm

           I don’t know if the following comment appeared here, I saw it somewhere…
           Microbeads! They’re planning to ban them! So how are we going to trade with pygmies now??
   • marty mars 7.2

     3 October 2017 at 3:02 pm

     Yeah why don’t the gnats get off their arses and do something. Too bloody lazy and thick – always wanting a free ride and pretend deaf when it comes to understanding what no means. Sad pathetic gnats and their useful tools like the bog and others.
   • Andre 7.3

     3 October 2017 at 3:06 pm

     So what’s stopping the Nats putting together a proposal and getting on the phone to present it to the Greens? Shaw has said he’s willing to listen. Why do the Nats seem to expect Shaw to call them first?
   • Robert Guyton 7.4

     3 October 2017 at 6:33 pm

     ” I realise that many of their party members, blinded by a rather irrational dislike of the National party…”

     The party members I know have a dislike of the National Party that is real, rational, patently valid, provable, logical and deeply felt.

     Just sayin’
     • alwyn 7.4.1

       3 October 2017 at 11:38 pm

       “The party members I know”.
       I’m sure they do, and it is a very simple reason why Shaw and the other Green MPs should do what they think New Zealand needs rather than just listen to the very small minority of New Zealanders who are members of the Green Party.

       You really should get out more and talk to real people.
       You are like the people who assured us on this blog that Labour were going to get about 45% and the Greens 15% or so. After all “All my friends think” and “Everyone I talk to says”, was their source of knowledge.
       • tracey 7.4.1.1

         4 October 2017 at 1:30 pm

         So now your argument is that Greens should not represent those that voted for them but those who chose to vote National which has an appalling environmental and social justice record? All cos you think it is for the best of the nation!
       • Robert Guyton 7.4.1.2

         4 October 2017 at 2:07 pm

         “Shaw and the other Green MPs should do what they think New Zealand needs”
         Heartily agree and I’ve confidence that they will. That’s because I have read and understand the Charter they work under and because I’ve followed closely what they’ve done and said to this point. Their actions and claims have integrity with their actions and promises as well as with my own world-view; one that I test against others such as alwyn, my right-wing friends and commentators of all stripes, so, putting all that together, I’m comfortable with agreeing with alwyn’s statement: “Shaw and the other Green MPs should do what they think New Zealand needs”.
     • Stuart Munro 7.4.2

       3 October 2017 at 11:42 pm

       Yup, it ain’t a prejudice – it’s a post-judice.
   • Chess Player 7.5

     3 October 2017 at 7:00 pm

     Do not be deterred Alwyn
     What you say makes a lot of sense
     This is just the wrong forum for this kind of suggestion
     • In Vino 7.5.1

       3 October 2017 at 10:59 pm

       Alwyn is like rust – he neither sleeps nor gets deterred. Unfortunately.
       • alwyn 7.5.1.1

         3 October 2017 at 11:40 pm

         And ‘In Vino” covers his eyes and ears and sits there going “nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah ……….”.
         • tracey 7.5.1.1.1

           4 October 2017 at 1:18 pm

           Says the guy who reposts something that faiks to acknowledge a promise not to.prop up National.
     • tracey 7.5.2

       4 October 2017 at 1:32 pm

       Have you read the Green Charter? Their rules? Their election campaign promises? Yeah, bout that.

       If you wanted more environmentalky friendly behaviour why did you vote National?
   • Matthew Whitehead 7.6

     3 October 2017 at 9:05 pm

     The Green MPs have no power to consider the prospect, that is a democratic right reserved for the broader party, not for caucus.

     And the Party did consider the possibility of a National coalition, and afterwards rejected it in favour of a pre-election Labour MoU given that there is no way to trust the current National caucus will get its act together on the environment, and how much they have actively been working against Green priorities while in government. If they get their fourth term from NZF and suddenly start behaving more reasonably on the environment, great I guess, but there are no indications that will happen.
     • weka 7.6.1

       3 October 2017 at 11:17 pm

       Pretty sure alwyn knows that about the MPs.

       (I think technically the Exec has a way to push something through on its own? Powers that wouldn’t be used in a situation like this unless as alwyn suggests they wanted to gain a few baubles while destroying the party. As if.)
       • alwyn 7.6.1.1

         3 October 2017 at 11:49 pm

         Yes, I am suggesting that, if the Green MPs really think that what this letter says is correct they should attempt to get the party faithful to follow their lead. If they can’t they should do what they believe to be right and necessary, rather than just sit their in their highly paid, and relatively easy sinecures and say “It’s nothing to do with me. It’s all the fault of those people over there”.

         Show some courage and do what is right for God’s sake. If you manage to save the New Zealand environment at the cost of your own seat in Parliament it is surely a sacrifice worth making?

         Of course if they think the letter is a load of crap they should refuse to do anything and stay there in Parliament collecting their fat pay packets and travelling in luxury wherever and whenever they wish to do so. What is a bit of carbon being added to the atmosphere.

         Their actions in the next few days will no doubt show us what their real interests are.
         • tracey 7.6.1.1.1

           4 October 2017 at 1:33 pm

           Why dont you address matthew rather than weka’s response to matthew?
   • tracey 7.7

     4 October 2017 at 1:17 pm

     Good to see Wayne’s repetitibe message got traction with the acolytes.

     What part of we promised not to go in with National do you people not understand? Let’s address tgat firsy
8. cleangreen 8

   3 October 2017 at 4:41 pm

   Alwyn.

   If you think National are suddenly about to become “Green” please come to HB/Gisborne and see the real truth.

   In Napier you will see what National have done to the environment now?

   Now without any rail from Napier to Gisborne they were planning many more trucks to feed freight to Napier Port.

   Now we have gone from 997 trucks a day in 2007 to 2400 a day in 2016, and in the NZTA “National freight demands” study 2016 are forecasting road freight to increase 2.7 times by 2032 if rail was available.

   Since now they closed rail we face a increase in truck freight levels to 2.7% and another 2.5% without rail availability by 2032.

   5.2% increase on current daily movements of 2400 trucks is going to become (around 12480 trucks a day) or 8.6 trucks each minute passing through the Napier heavily residential section of the HB Expressway, affecting over 12000 residents health and wellbeing who live within 300 meters of that truck road.

   We now face very heavy black sooty dust air pollution from truck tyre exhaust and tyre dust pollution which leaves black dust on every home around this road to the Port.

   Now we are facing another five times the air pollution of exhaust and tyre dust and will become the worst by far polluted region in NZ.

   be careful not to over-simply road freight issues that national now embraces with fervour, for you now see how evil their environmental policies really are flawed.

   And I have not even talked about “Road runoff pollution” of that truck pollution entering our waterways Alwyn yet!!!!

   According to Ministry of Transport “infrastructure Auckland Emissions factors for contaminants released by motor vehicles study 2002” – it shows that just one truck tyre deposits each one way per km = 0.21g/km.

   This means that each 32 tyre freight truck now sheds 0.21g/km x 32 times = total this is a massive 0.672 g/km or equal to each km that just one truck travels down our road polluting our waterways and polluting our air destroying the health of many of us.

   So add 12480 x 0.672 = equals = 8.672 g/km which is almost one kilo of tyre dust per km and you see our issue clearly dont you?
   • alwyn 8.1

     3 October 2017 at 6:28 pm

     Is this any more accurate than the comment you made about the evil Nationals claiming ballot box stuffing?
     Was that really based on the item someone else told me about?
     Why didn’t you provide a link to justify your claim there when I asked for one?

     However to this one. Can you provide a link to something authoritative justifying these claims? I would like to see whether they are real.
   • cleangreen 8.2

     3 October 2017 at 6:28 pm

     Correction to the stats’ above —

     The last post should read 838.56 gms per km as below. That is equal to two pounds of butter in volume per km and this goes down the drains into our environment every km those trucks travel on.
     So rail without tyres give us all a far better cleaner environment.

     According to Ministry of Transport “infrastructure Auckland Emissions factors for contaminants released by motor vehicles study 2002” – it shows that just one truck tyre deposits each one way per km = 0.21g/km.
     This means that each 32 tyre freight truck now sheds 0.21g/km x 32 times = total this is a massive 0.672 g/km or equal to each km that just one truck travels down our road polluting our waterways and polluting our air destroying the health of many of us.
     So add 12480 x 0.672 = equals = 838.56 g/km which is almost one kilo of tyre dust per km and you see our issue clearly don’t you?
9. cleangreen 9

   3 October 2017 at 6:32 pm

   Alwyn the national man,

   Go goggle this ; Page 31,32.
   Ministry of Transport “infrastructure Auckland Emissions factors for contaminants released by motor vehicles study 2002”

   Then google tyre dust composition and see 1,3,Butadiene on the OSHA/NIOSH data base and find that 1,3, Butadiene causes cancer and nervous system damage but you wouldn’t care about that would you?

   Do you work for trucking companies, & chemical companies or as a lobbyist?

   You dont support rail freight do you?
   • alwyn 9.1

     3 October 2017 at 11:54 pm

     I support rail freight where it makes sense.
     That includes the Auckland/Hamilton/Tauranga triangle, the Main Trunk from Auckland to Wellington and the Christchurch – West Coast link. There are probably some others but that is not the point of this post.
     It certainly doesn’t include a train a week or so from Napier to Gisborne.

     “Do you work for trucking companies”.
     NO I DO NOT.
     • cleangreen 9.1.1

       4 October 2017 at 8:00 am

       Alwyn; – I am staying on the subject of “what the Post is about” “The environmental open letter”

       This ‘Blog’ subject is about the ‘Environment’; – and you again all you used again was to insult my integrity yet again.

       As a former Kiwi Electronic employee in a canadian based Communication company I was employed in a large building for six months while it was not venilated and was seriously chemically poisoned and 7yrs of very intense treatments & recovery and while recovering I took a university course in chemical toxicology which resulted in a post grad in Safety & Health, so I speak from some authority as to how the environment has some relevence here as the post makes it clear we need to be serious about our environment!!!!!!!!!!!!

       This now should finally be clear to you why we now need rail freight transport to lower our ‘environmental pollution’ even if as of now it does not pay in freight carried but it will do in the future and we on the ground in Gisborne have a ‘bussiness plan’ to ensure in future this restored rail service is certain to pay it’s own way but very importantly, including will be saving our ‘environment’.
10. JC 10

    3 October 2017 at 10:10 pm

    Haven’t some* of You forgotten what the Post is about…..

    *Alwyn!! FFS

    https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/apr/05/online-trolls-comments

    I recall enquiring where you sat some time ago….
11. Robert Guyton 11

    4 October 2017 at 9:53 am

    Alwyn – I read Farrar’s post long before you started pimping it here. I decided there and then that it was nothing of value to me, people like me and The Greens. I would say Farrar can never offer anything worthwhile to The Greens, given his long-standing denigration of green, greenies, Green MPs and The Green Party, his repeated demeaning attack posts, particularly his “The Greens want to shoot the dairy herd” bullshit (used by National this election). Based on what I’ve read from him over the years, I’d trust him not one iota, ever. Your promotion of him and your criticism of anyone who refuses to indulge you or Farrar by considering his latest attempt to harm The Green Party is pfffffffft!
    • alwyn 11.1

      4 October 2017 at 1:04 pm

      At least you read it Robert.
      It is people who automatically dismiss something without reading it at all, and then proffer views on how terrible the ideas are without having even looked at them I find so depressing.
      • weka 11.1.1

        4 October 2017 at 1:12 pm

        If you genuinely wanted people to read it and respond genuinely you’d have copied across the relevant bits instead of astroturfing a site with an argument act boils down to the Greens should kill themselves off because it helps National.

        But I’ll put up my refusing to read DPF’s propaganda against your utter inability to understand what the GP is and why they do what they do and how that makes a N/G coalition or deal impossible despite it being explained ad nauseam.
        • Robert Guyton 11.1.1.1

          4 October 2017 at 1:38 pm

          Take it from me, weka, your disinterest in Farrar’s work is well-founded. Your point about alwyn’s 🙂 short-fallings is well made.
      • tracey 11.1.2

        4 October 2017 at 1:35 pm

        You mean like you not reading Green Rules or pre election promises
      • tracey 11.1.3

        4 October 2017 at 1:36 pm

        Truthfully what you find depressing is people who wont see the world the way you do.
        • Robert Guyton 11.1.3.1

          4 October 2017 at 1:43 pm

          Just like us, Tracey! Everybody believes they are a realist and has the best view, under the circumstances. It’s only when you accept that there are multiple truths out there that you can start to explore what it is other people mean .
          • weka 11.1.3.1.1

            4 October 2017 at 1:53 pm

            this is true. Also true is that some people have more ability to work through something logically than others. There’s no getting around the rules of the GP yet alwyn seems determined to try.
            • alwyn 11.1.3.1.1.1

              4 October 2017 at 3:31 pm

              [deleted]

              [Have another go when you can link to things you are cut and pasting. – weka]
              • weka …

                4 October 2017 at 3:56 pm

                moderator note above.
              • alwyn …

                4 October 2017 at 5:17 pm

                Wow, that struck a nerve didn’t it.

                I can’t help it if The Listener doesn’t make it possible to do so because they have a paywall or suchlike on the latest editions and therefore I couldn’t provide a link to the latest editorial.
                That is why I gave you the material and told you where it came from.
                I even typed it all in as I couldn’t cut and paste.

                Oh well, in a couple of weeks when people can see it for free it will all be irrelevant and we will know whether we have Winston and Labour or Winston and National in the Beehive..

                [I found it online and it wasn’t behind a paywall. Take a week off for wasting my time and being a being an arse – weka]
          • tracey 11.1.3.1.2

            5 October 2017 at 7:55 am

            You are right of course. Self reflection is also a key difference.

            I respect that alwyn comes here and reads because it shows he gets there are different views. I go to sites or read articles by people whose views of the world I do not share to try and stay more open.

            The MOST frustrating thing for me on this current topic is when people like Wayne and alwyn ask questions or who seem to not understand why the Greens wont go with Nats but when we ask them to;

            Read the rules
            Read the Charter
            Acknowledge the pre election promise to get rid of Nats
            Evidence for why/how the Greens can trust Nats in negotations and partnership

            they ignore it.
12. Robert Guyton 12

    4 October 2017 at 3:48 pm

    Ideological purity – pfffffffttt! That’s the framing “typical members” of the National Party, have to frame The Green’ truth-telling. Obsessed with dislike for the National Party? Why would you say obsessed ? The dislike I see is not obsessive, it’s prosaic and well-founded. Strong though, dislike for the kinds of deceptions National MPs, their leaders in particular, have been performing in order to mislead the public. Not obsessed, alwyn, disappointed and chastened that we have come to this point. As for forgiving them their sins then enabling them to continue on their way – nah, thanks very much, nah!
    I found the Listener editor’s claim:
    ” That is a strange choice for any political party, especially one stressing the urgency of action on climate change.” I can’t imagine what National might do in the next three years, that could be called “urgent action on climate change”, can you?
    If you can, I’d like to hear it!
    • alwyn 12.1

      4 October 2017 at 5:27 pm

      “If you can, I’d like to hear it!”

      Have the Green MPs offer a deal with National in exchange for their co-operation.
      Then they can put forward what they consider the price should be. National can take it or leave it.

      The alternative, if National think it is worth the candle, is to do a deal with Winston First and I very much doubt that any of his demands will be in the area of protecting the environment.

      I think that National would probably rather do a deal with the Green Party rather than with Winston. His coalitions aren’t that stable are they?

      Somewhere else you proposed I should get a spine. I believe the Green MPs should develop a spine of their own and tell their members that the effects of CC and environmental change are such that they will support National to get something done. Let them learn to LEAD.

      If the Green Party want to deselect these MPs at the next election so be it.
      • Robert Guyton 12.1.1

        4 October 2017 at 5:35 pm

        Well, alwyn, though I appreciate that you did respond, you didn’t tell me what “urgent action on climate change” National might offer. Their past behaviour has been, from a greeny’s point of view, to obstruct any meaningful action on climate change, so believing, hoping, wishing and praying that they might, could, will do a complete about-face because The Greens asked them to is nothing more than a pipe dream, a delusion. Imo.
        • alwyn 12.1.1.1

          4 October 2017 at 5:48 pm

          “because The Greens asked them”.

          If the Greens offered C&S in return, or even more a proper coalition it would certainly be much more than just “asking them” wouldn’t it? It would be telling them the conditions to get Green support rather than having to try and get something out of Winston.

          Go through with these things because if not we will pull the plug is much closer to the scenario that would be in effect.

          Tell them what is required and see what they say. The National Party leadership have been through this before and they know what is required. If the price is too high for them they might not accept the Green wish list but you’ll never know unless you try.
          • Robert Guyton 12.1.1.1.1

            4 October 2017 at 5:55 pm

            Of course, we’d have to have a degree of trust in National; that they’d do as they promised, not twist the conditions to suit themselves, not “do a Joyce” on the issue, not deceive, misdirect, misspeak, mis-remember, forget, renege.
            It’s a BIG ask, alwyn, based on what we know of them.
            In any case, The Greens campaigned on ejecting National and supporting Labour; they’re not going to betray their voters, ’cause, integrity 🙂
            • tracey 12.1.1.1.1.1

              5 October 2017 at 8:00 am

              How ironic that a party that variously calls Greens loonies or communists considers they would make govt more stable.

              The media and Nat dislike for Peters is what is starting to look obsessive not the Green Party pre election promises and rules.

              I notice that for over a week various people have put the trust issue back to people like Wayne and alwyn anfd they do not address it. Except when Wayne completely missed the point and said that Greens distrust all business, which is false.
          • Robert Guyton 12.1.1.1.2

            4 October 2017 at 6:09 pm

            And let’s not forget; there’s another option (or two) on the table; go with Labour. Perhaps they’ll have some tempting offers to make around climate change action…
    • tracey 12.2

      5 October 2017 at 7:57 am

      Wow Robert. Thanks for so articulately expressing it.
13. cleangreen 13

    4 October 2017 at 6:11 pm

    What a dreamer –

    If someone would think that the Greens would go with toxic National
    after yesterday the Greens leader came out again in the press confirming what he said after the election on 23rd September saying “the Green Party will seek to go into coalition with the Labour party”!!!!!

    So the saying goes “dreams are free”

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/340140/shaw-wants-full-partnership-in-a-labour-nz-first-deal

    “Despite some reports National would work with the Greens, Mr Shaw has ruled out that possibility and said he has not received a call from Bill English, nor would he call the National Party leader.

    “I’ve always said my goal was to change the government, and to form a new coalition government with the Labour Party afterwards, that’s what I’m working on and I think that possibility remains very real today, and even more so once the special votes are being counted,” Mr Shaw said.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS