Who’s next?

13 comments on “Who’s next? ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Daveski 1

   25 November 2009 at 9:17 am

   Haters and wreckers?

   Rich pricks?

   Funny how the rules of engagement change when you’re in opposition.

   Labour has equally targetted groups and if any thing Key’s signature (apart from being relaxed) is his willingness to work with different groups.

   And as for protecting the Moroccan cooking night classes, you won’t win an election if you think that’s a call to solidarity for the masses.

   PS I think I read the post fully this time!
   • Zaphod Beeblebrox 1.1

     25 November 2009 at 9:40 am

     Nice point. We really need to get away from the us versus them mentality.

     Maybe Nick Smith this taken this to heart. His ETS legislation is going to screw over ALL our kids environmentally and economically. No favouritism there.
   • Tigger 1.2

     25 November 2009 at 9:54 am

     So when did Labour increase ACC levies for ‘haters and wreckers’ (that a job?) or ‘rich pricks’?

     And how does the increse to biker levies indicate Key’s ‘willingness to work with others’?
     • Daveski 1.2.1

       25 November 2009 at 10:01 am

       You’re assuming that there is validity in the claim that bikers are being targeted – I think it would be reasonable to assume from an insurance pov bikers do carry more risk.

       It’s all perspective anyway. Labour deliberately targetted those earning over $60K then allowed fiscal creep to run away with their own justification.

       Labour could justify it, as National can in terms of bikes.

       However, I think Marty’s back the wrong horse here to assume National is the only govt that will look at the political merits of its policies by interest groups.

       A question to marty – does solidarity mean standing up for a group when *they* believe they are being screwed eg beating kids. It’s the same principle – you’re just adding your value judgements as all political parties do.
2. zelda 2

   25 November 2009 at 9:36 am

   Carbon released when I cut down my trees ?
   How does that happen?

   Dont you mean the carbon NOT absorbed when I cut down my trees AND I dont plant new ones which because they are growing rapidly absorb more carbon
   • kaplan 2.1

     25 November 2009 at 9:43 am

     It depends on what you are going to do with the tree after it is cut down. If it rots it will release carbon slowly, if it is heat processed, including kiln drying or conversion to particle board, it will release some of it’s carbon immediately, if it is burned it will release practically all of it’s carbon very rapidly. In any case at some point, the carbon will be released unless you encase it in some kind of protective shell and keep it as a rather large ornament.
   • snoozer 2.2

     25 November 2009 at 9:47 am

     Currently in international law a tree’s stored carbon is considered released when cut down. So, if you deforest, you owe carbon credits (obviously, if you replant the carbon emission is balanced by new carbon sequestration).

     NZ is pretty keen to get a change to this to recognise that some carbon stays embedded in wood products for a long time. But, eventually, everything rots.
     • zelda 2.2.1

       25 November 2009 at 9:57 am

       So a treaty says released ‘immediately’. Thats nice .

       That doesnt sound very scientific.

       And even if kiln dried ‘some’ of the carbon is released. Really

       So by international treaty definition cutting down a plantation forest is the same as the burning of tropical forest.
       Doesnt sound like the lawyers bother with any science
       • snoozer 2.2.1.1

         25 November 2009 at 10:13 am

         No zelda. If you replant your plantation forest, it’s not the same as burning it down because the new trees will offset the carbon released from the old ones.

         It’s the change in land use that attracts the carbon cost. This all comes under the part of Kyoto known as Land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF).

         As Kaplan and I have both tried to explain to you in simple terms, eventually the carbon from any felled tree is released – when is just a timing issue (and NZ is trying to get recognition of it in the new treaty) – so unless you plant new trees in the place of those you have felled, you are contributing to climate change.
         • zelda 2.2.1.1.1

           25 November 2009 at 10:27 am

           I said a treaty, counts them as the same!!
           Thats why you want it changed Right.

           Spare me the patronising simple terms.
           In my very first post I said that re- planting the trees was required. Is too simple for you?
           • snoozer 2.2.1.1.1.1

             25 November 2009 at 10:33 am

             no in your first post, you were confused because you thought that there’s no release of carbon from clearing a forest and not replanting it. You thought the only loss was not absorbing more carbon.

             “Dont you mean the carbon NOT absorbed when I cut down my trees AND I dont plant new ones which because they are growing rapidly absorb more carbon”

             see?

             so marty is right. Iwi are asking us to cover the cost in carbon credits of them cutting down their trees.
         • Draco T Bastard 2.2.1.1.2

           25 November 2009 at 11:20 am

           eventually the carbon from any felled tree is released when is just a timing issue (and NZ is trying to get recognition of it in the new treaty)

           Which would be almost impossible to determine which is why the timing isn’t in the treaty.
3. SHG 3

   25 November 2009 at 3:46 pm

   Wow. A post, on the Standard, from Marty G, advocating for a flat tax rate.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS