Well done National

16 comments on “Well done National ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Gosman 1

   21 August 2009 at 9:33 am

   Ummmm…. other than in your head where is the evidence for your claims of ‘international ridicule over emissions targets’?

   Are they holding ridicule meetings at the UN now?

   Perhaps the IPCC has a Ridicule sub-comittee that I wasn’t aware of.
   • Lew 1.1

     21 August 2009 at 10:01 am

     Gosman, The Press, yesterday (can’t find it on Stuff, sorry). Money quotes from IPCC chair Rajendra Pachauri:

     … said he expected a stronjger commitment than the government’s highly conditional proposal of cutting up to 20% of emissions, from 1990 levels. “We clearly need a much greater level of ambition,” he said from India. … the IPCC head slammed the “fallacy” that rich countries had to choose between the environment and the economy. “There are plenty of examples around the world, which are growing in fact, where countries are going down the path of green growth – developing sectors of the economy which will be far more eobust in the future than continuing with business as usual. The political context needs to be changed.” Pressure from other developed nations might force NZ to rethink the target, he said, but added “Maybe that’s wishful thinking”.

     Key messages here:
     1. NZ is unambitious, timid and backward-looking;
     2. NZ is fooled by the false environment-economy dichotomy;
     3. NZ is not keeping up its obligations to the same extent as other countries;
     4. These problems are at the governmental level;
     5. NZ probably doesn’t care what other countries think of it.

     That’s pretty harsh stuff in the language of international diplomacy.

     L
   • snoozer 1.2

     21 August 2009 at 10:01 am

     The head of the IPCC Dr Rajendra Pachauri criticised us yeaterday http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0908/S00298.htm .

     Nick Smith tried to make excuses ‘you dont undersnad our unique circumstances boo hoo’. He’s going to write to Pachauri explaining our situation.

     I hope Pachauri’s reply is ‘I’m sure the planet will understand, Nick.’
     • snoozer 1.2.1

       21 August 2009 at 10:08 am

       double slap chop there Gosman.

       Gee, maybe you shouldn’t assume that people writing posts on a widely read blog are stupid enough to make up basic facts given that they’re certain to get caught out if they try it.
       • Gosman 1.2.1.1

         21 August 2009 at 10:34 am

         That is hardly ridicule. It is the head of the IPCC expressing disappointment.

         When did ridicule get equated with disappointment in your world?
         • Lew 1.2.1.1.1

           21 August 2009 at 10:41 am

           Gosman, I don’t really think r0b’s characterisation of ‘ridicule’ is correct, but that’s some fairly tough criticism, don’t you agree? That’s ultimately the point, not the specific matter of terminology.

           L
         • Tigger 1.2.1.1.2

           21 August 2009 at 10:45 am

           Gosman – the statement is very diplomatic (as you would expect it to be given international relations etc). That’s ridicule – just politely put.

           As for Nick ‘I’m sending him a harsh letter’ Smith – the good doctor should man up and own their decisions rather than provide mealy mouth explanations. I detest National’s stance on climate change but detest them not having the balls to defend it with conviction even more.
           • Gosman 1.2.1.1.2.1

             21 August 2009 at 1:44 pm

             If that is ridicule then I must have my wife on for expressing disappointment for me turning up later than expected after I have been out for a couple of drinks post work. I’ll inform her she was ridiculing me and that it isn’t very nice.
           • snoozer 1.2.1.1.2.2

             21 August 2009 at 2:37 pm

             wow a pedent on the internet. that’s new. try to deal in the substance of the argument, rather than semantics.

             Oh and (sorry I can’t help myself) … the disappointment, maybe it’s not from turning up late, maybe it’s from turning up at all
2. mickysavage 2

   21 August 2009 at 9:41 am

   It is an improvement on the original post but they still have this ridiculous ban on District Plans having blanket tree protection rules in them. Get ready for the chainsaws as people start felling pesky trees in accordance with their god given rights to clearfell.

   I have blogged on this at http://waitakerenews.blogspot.com/2009/08/what-do-they-have-against-trees.html
   • RedLogix 2.1

     21 August 2009 at 9:58 am

     The arithmetic on this is really sad.

     The average NZ homeowner moves home every 5 years.

     Let’s say that 1 in 5 homeowners are eco-vandals and clear fell every damn tree on their section.

     That means that on average every section will be clear felled about once every 25 years.

     Well you can argue my numbers, but realitistically it doesn’t leave much chance for any long-living species to ever mature does it?
     • mickysavage 2.1.1

       21 August 2009 at 10:26 am

       You are quite right RL. It takes a lot longer for a tree to mature than for it to be chopped down.

       It is also amazing that District Plans are meant to embody the goals and desires of a local community except as it applies to trees. Why should trees be exempt?
     • Mac1 2.1.2

       21 August 2009 at 10:37 am

       Redlogix, sad but more than borne out by my neighbours who in six years on three properties and seven changes of ownership have on three occasions whole sale chopped down trees.
       There is a lot of Wally Footrot in the NZ psyche when it comes to trimming trees. Luckily, one neighbour still has kept his thirty year old beech trees but I had to argue for them. A thirty year old golden totara was going to get bowled because it kept light from the bedroom. He accepted my argument that a judicious pruning of the lower branches would allow in light but keep out the hot afternoon sun.
       I wouldn’t argue with your numbers.
       rOb, thanks for the hat-tip- you were much kinder than I would have been. The question now is what factors have given Key and the Nat-led government such a continued high poll rating?
3. Inventory2 3

   21 August 2009 at 11:27 am

   Just an idle thought – isn’t r0b, writing in The Standard and saying “Let’s hope that this is the start of a genuine commitment to putting aside ideologically driven bandwagons” a case of the pot calling the kettle black?
4. Swampy 4

   22 August 2009 at 9:46 pm

   Do you actually have anything to back up your claims about the Party president? It’s very convenient for you to be able to make these claims, and also hide behind the claim of certain other matters that mean your claims can’t be debated.
5. Swampy 5

   22 August 2009 at 9:53 pm

   “- a recent humbling by election loss”
   Unlike Labour they didn’t pass a law that stopped a by election from being held.

   “- a minister sacked (for reasons that we are not allowed to know)”
   does anyone really know why Dover Samuels was sacked, because he should have been reinstated to Cabinet (so should Phillida for that matter)

   – an MP under investigation for an immigration scam
   How many Labour ministers were investigated? Quite a few.

   – a minister under investigation for breach of privacy law
   Helen Clark investigated over the painting and sued for defamation, not quite up to that level with National yet.

   – a rogue party president
   Says who?

   – the odd dangerously erratic coalition MP
   Like Winston eh?

   – a broken promise on tax cuts
   Political perversity here, no one cares outside the beltway

   – a breaking promise on health sector reform
   Nothing has been done yet, are you asleep?

   – an anti-democratic mess in Auckland
   What’s anti democratic about the select committee process?

   – international ridicule over emissions targets
   Just the same old bunch of whingers

   – a huge risk over Afghanistan
   What risk?

   – a foreshore and seabed ticking time bomb
   That one that Labour has been sitting on for the past few years

   – populist referendum exploding bomb
   I never heard so much rubbish in all my life.

   – and of course not least a rogue coalition partner
   You mean like Winston First.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS