So the Greens have blogged about nuclear energy, typically using "we" phrases as if the Green Party speaks for what everyone thinks and does.
Its statement below is one I don't necessary disagree with in part, except it rather inanely draws a conclusion that means the opposite of what is Green policy.
"Given that it is easy, even here in NZ, to get private finance to line up and support renewable energy projects, without a penny of government subsidy, one has to wonder why we continue to buy into the hype that nuclear is the way to go. The economic rational simply does not exist. With peak oil and climate change breathing down our necks, it is time to take decisive action. Action that can stand the test of time, sustainably." (sic) (can't this lot use English properly?)
Well if the economic rationale for nuclear doesn't exist, then there shouldn't be any legal impediment to nuclear energy being developed in New Zealand should there? If the argument against nuclear is economic, then set that argument free to be tested.
Secondly. If "renewable" energy apparently is economically viable as the statement implies, why take action at all?
Of course the truth is that the RMA stymies the development of the most viable and renewable electricity source - hydro.
29 July 2008
So what are you voting for?
Do you want a change because of the Electoral Finance Act? It is probably the single biggest reasons to remove Labour, but what comes in its place isn't promising or clear.
Do you want tax cuts? Well yes fine, but so far tax cuts are only clearly announced by Libertarianz, ACT and NZ First.
Do you want a radical change in how health care is delivered so that it becomes consumer centric? Well yes fine, but again only looks like Libertarianz and maybe ACT could deliver that.
Do you want education for your kids based on what you want them to learn, based upon you choosing where they go and funding following your kids? Again looks like Libertarianz, and ACT could offer that.
Do you want the welfare state downsized and reformed so that only those who are truly unable to earn their own way get some assistance, and others are incentivised to buy their own insurance and protection against misfortune? Again, Libertarianz and to some extent ACT offer that.
Do you want private property rights protected? Only looks like Libertarianz from here, ACT is not that clear on this one.
Do you want less government? Libertarianz are clear on this, ACT appears to want to at least stop things getting worse and at best cut government's portion of GDP to Australia's.
So why are you supporting National? Do you just like Labour's policies but fed up with Helen Clark and Michael Cullen? You see, that's pretty much what it looks like you'll be getting.
So your choices:
Labour or Labour Lite (Helen Key and John Clark, whatever).
Libertarianz or Libertarianz Lite (truly)
Nationalists for Winston First (and stop those bloody Asians ruining our country you know?)
Green socialists (and stop those evil foreign drinkers of childrens' blood ruining our country you know?)
Maori Nationalists for socialism first, well we think (and stop both of them)
Dunne and Anderton one-man bands (build Transmission Gully and renationalise what you can and put the word "Kiwi" in front of it).
Methinks half of you just are fed up with politicians, Clark and Cullen especially - but don't really want change. After all, if you did, surely Rodney Hide and Roger Douglas would be able to command the sorts of support Winston once did, such as 10-12%. However they're not. Neither of course are Libertarianz.
So you do like big government don't you? You like how politicians and bureaucrats ration health care for you, decide what your kids will learn and whether to pay failing schools more, you like governments buying airlines, railways and building telecommunications networks, you like more welfare for the middle classes, you like being forced to pay for leftwing TV and radio, you like separate race based seats and laws, you like environmentalism and the way local authorities can run roughshod over your property rights.
Don't you? That's what this is telling me.
Do you want tax cuts? Well yes fine, but so far tax cuts are only clearly announced by Libertarianz, ACT and NZ First.
Do you want a radical change in how health care is delivered so that it becomes consumer centric? Well yes fine, but again only looks like Libertarianz and maybe ACT could deliver that.
Do you want education for your kids based on what you want them to learn, based upon you choosing where they go and funding following your kids? Again looks like Libertarianz, and ACT could offer that.
Do you want the welfare state downsized and reformed so that only those who are truly unable to earn their own way get some assistance, and others are incentivised to buy their own insurance and protection against misfortune? Again, Libertarianz and to some extent ACT offer that.
Do you want private property rights protected? Only looks like Libertarianz from here, ACT is not that clear on this one.
Do you want less government? Libertarianz are clear on this, ACT appears to want to at least stop things getting worse and at best cut government's portion of GDP to Australia's.
So why are you supporting National? Do you just like Labour's policies but fed up with Helen Clark and Michael Cullen? You see, that's pretty much what it looks like you'll be getting.
So your choices:
Labour or Labour Lite (Helen Key and John Clark, whatever).
Libertarianz or Libertarianz Lite (truly)
Nationalists for Winston First (and stop those bloody Asians ruining our country you know?)
Green socialists (and stop those evil foreign drinkers of childrens' blood ruining our country you know?)
Maori Nationalists for socialism first, well we think (and stop both of them)
Dunne and Anderton one-man bands (build Transmission Gully and renationalise what you can and put the word "Kiwi" in front of it).
Methinks half of you just are fed up with politicians, Clark and Cullen especially - but don't really want change. After all, if you did, surely Rodney Hide and Roger Douglas would be able to command the sorts of support Winston once did, such as 10-12%. However they're not. Neither of course are Libertarianz.
So you do like big government don't you? You like how politicians and bureaucrats ration health care for you, decide what your kids will learn and whether to pay failing schools more, you like governments buying airlines, railways and building telecommunications networks, you like more welfare for the middle classes, you like being forced to pay for leftwing TV and radio, you like separate race based seats and laws, you like environmentalism and the way local authorities can run roughshod over your property rights.
Don't you? That's what this is telling me.
China and India helping to derail world trade talks
Associated Press is reporting that China and India are calling for INCREASES in agricultural protectionism, wanting the powers to increase tariffs if there is a significant increase in imports. They ironically have been seeking higher cuts in subsidies and protection from the EU and the US, whilst not wanting to reciprocate in opening up their own markets for agricultural or manufactured goods sufficiently.
WTO Chief Pascal Lamy has been trying to negotiate a deal that would include significant reductions in limits of EU and US spending on agricultural subsidies, while developing countries would cut manufactured goods tariffs by 20-25%.
Meanwhile, the French, Italians and Irish farmers, piggies supping at the trough of the EU Common Agricultural Policy are objecting to the modest compromise proposals.
If ever there was a time when the world needed to open up trade, and get rid of inefficient cost-plus subsidies and barriers to trade, it is now. European farmers have lived long enough off the back of the European taxpayers and consumers. Export subsidies should end immediately, quotas and other barriers to imports should also end, and existing subsidies phased out in a three year transition. Then, and only then, can European farmers deserve to not be called bludgers.
WTO Chief Pascal Lamy has been trying to negotiate a deal that would include significant reductions in limits of EU and US spending on agricultural subsidies, while developing countries would cut manufactured goods tariffs by 20-25%.
Meanwhile, the French, Italians and Irish farmers, piggies supping at the trough of the EU Common Agricultural Policy are objecting to the modest compromise proposals.
If ever there was a time when the world needed to open up trade, and get rid of inefficient cost-plus subsidies and barriers to trade, it is now. European farmers have lived long enough off the back of the European taxpayers and consumers. Export subsidies should end immediately, quotas and other barriers to imports should also end, and existing subsidies phased out in a three year transition. Then, and only then, can European farmers deserve to not be called bludgers.
German power company promoting a stereotype
Yes N-Power wants kids to become "climate cops".
Tim Blair calls it Baby Stasi, which is a bit strong, but really how keen are you for your kids to be telling you off for "destroying the world" or "shrinking the home of polar bears" as it is depicted.
At least it is a private initiative, and I don't use N-Power. However, it is curious how a big bad electricity company is encouraging people to not use the commodity that it is selling and encouraging children to do the job for them.
Tim Blair calls it Baby Stasi, which is a bit strong, but really how keen are you for your kids to be telling you off for "destroying the world" or "shrinking the home of polar bears" as it is depicted.
At least it is a private initiative, and I don't use N-Power. However, it is curious how a big bad electricity company is encouraging people to not use the commodity that it is selling and encouraging children to do the job for them.
The state discovers the obvious
Lindsay Mitchell blogs on a Ministry of Social Development report that denies that colonisation is responsible for domestic violence among Maori families.
The truth is more a matter of inter-generational violence (children grow up being abused or seeing abuse, so are psychologically normalised to tolerate or use violence) and economic stress increasing the propensity for violence to be unleashed.
However, neither is an excuse. It is time for the welfare state to be tough against those who commit violent offences. It is time for those convicted of serious violent and sexual offences to be denied welfare, to be denied custody of children and to not be allowed to live in the same home as children under the age of 16. Tough? Yes. How else are we to stop vile scum who beat up their partners and kids from perpetuating this disgusting cycle of wasting lives? We can't save most of those who perpetuate it - but we can stop paying for them, and we can stop them from living in the homes of children.
Meanwhile, the collectivists who pine for the golden age of pre-colonial, pre-written language, stoneage civilisation can continue to do so, and contemplate whether their myth of a violence free blessed existence can have as much credibility as the claims that European society was the same.
The truth is more a matter of inter-generational violence (children grow up being abused or seeing abuse, so are psychologically normalised to tolerate or use violence) and economic stress increasing the propensity for violence to be unleashed.
However, neither is an excuse. It is time for the welfare state to be tough against those who commit violent offences. It is time for those convicted of serious violent and sexual offences to be denied welfare, to be denied custody of children and to not be allowed to live in the same home as children under the age of 16. Tough? Yes. How else are we to stop vile scum who beat up their partners and kids from perpetuating this disgusting cycle of wasting lives? We can't save most of those who perpetuate it - but we can stop paying for them, and we can stop them from living in the homes of children.
Meanwhile, the collectivists who pine for the golden age of pre-colonial, pre-written language, stoneage civilisation can continue to do so, and contemplate whether their myth of a violence free blessed existence can have as much credibility as the claims that European society was the same.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)