Go on, take real action on global warming

Frogblog is quoting a survey saying "a majority of kiwis support taking real action to combat global warming". Fine, who is stopping them? The survey the Greens are quoting lists a whole host of "measures", which I don't have a problem with, if they involve people making their own choices or they are about getting the hell out of the way of making choices. So let's go through them, nice to get rid of the euphemisms and describe what they really are

"More incentives for households to improve energy efficiency" means forcing other people to pay others to save money by being more efficient. Oh please. How about letting electricity operate at market prices, by privatising it, and not really caring where prices go as a result?

"Incentives for businesses developing renewable energy projects (like wind, solar, wave, geothermal, hydro power)" means forcing other people to pay for businesses in the renewable energy sector that the state identifies. Another option could be to zero tax any companies primarily engaging in that sector, but that starts to become complicated, better to just reduce the burden of tax on business overall.

"Lower vehicle registration fees for fuel efficient and low-emission vehicles" means reducing money to spend on road safety promotion and Police enforcement of traffic laws. Though the main part of registration fees primarily pay ACC (which would be better off just being open to competition and choice), and also pay for road safety promotion and Police enforcement of traffic laws. So do the Greens want less spent on road safety, or money transferred from roads? Yeah you've figured it out already.

"A cash incentive to encourage replacement of energy inefficient home appliances with energy efficient ones" means forcing you to pay for people to buy new appliances. Nice, could always just cut GST on them instead, or just cut taxes overall so people can better afford them. Guess it doesn't matter if the reason people don't buy them is it is cheaper to buy others and spend the difference on something more important right?

"Financial incentives to purchase fuel efficient, low emission vehicles" making you pay for other people to buy new cars!! When was the last time you bought a brand new car? Yep very Green. Could always just cut GST on them too.

"Incentives for landowners to plant more carbon sink forests" making you pay for landowners to plant trees. Yep. Own land do you? Nope no money for you.

"New Government investment funds to help quickly commercialise new lower-emission technology invented in New Zealand" making you pay for "businesses" that aren't profitable in the hope they are. How's your business doing? Yep maybe they'd all like a company tax cut?

"Lower road user charges for diesel vehicles using lower-emission bio fuels" less money for roads because I haven't noticed the type of fuel trucks and buses use reducing the wear and tear they impose.

"A Government information programme to advise businesses and households about climate change policies and ways to help manage it" forcing you to pay to be told what to do by the government. Is it polite to call it propaganda?

"Increasing goods transportation by rail and coastal shipping" how? What's stopping those who want to, doing it now? Oh yes, it often costs more. So is this about forcing you to pay for goods to be shipped at higher than cost? Where is the evidence this will make a difference?

"Increased spending on research to produce technology to help reduce emissions" force you to pay for more research. Be more polite to ask.

"Subsidies for farmers to use fertilisers which inhibit the release of nitrogen, lowering emissions and improving water quality" force you to subsidise farms. Fertiliser subsidies went in the 1980s, and this would hurt arguing for less subsidies in agriculture at the WTO, but the Greens don't care about exports soo...

"Assistance to sell New Zealand emissions reduction technology to other countries" subsidises for marketing to countries? So governments then? So are businesses that incompetent that they need to force others to pay for their marketing?

"Replacing road user tax with a lower vehicle licensing levy for light diesel vehicles, including cars" This doesn't even make sense. So light diesel vehicles should have their road use subsidised so they pay an annual fee instead of according to usage? Buy a diesel and use it as much as you like - very Green??

"Allowing forest owners to cut their trees and replant substitute carbon-sink forests on other marginal land without incurring any emissions penalty" Yes!! DON'T do anything that penalises behaviour that can reduce CO2 emissions. That can't be hard.

"Higher road user charges for vehicles which are not fuel and emissions efficient," oh so making a windfall profit from such vehicles, to spend on what? More roads? Didn't think so. Oh to subsidise the other ones for the costs they impose. Any evidence this would work?

"Higher road user charges for diesel vehicles which do not use lower-emission bio fuels" ditto

Bar one, it is all about making you pay more to prop up unprofitable businesses or to pay people to do something that likely benefits them financially (reducing energy use).

Here are four better ideas:

1. People who believe "more should be done" to prevent climate change should do it themselves. Turn off the lights, drive less and do all this without tax or regulation. Live the ascetic low carbon footprint lifestyle, and you can tell others to do so as well, but don't force them.

2. Stop getting in the way of low CO2 business activities. Nuclear power is an obvious one (which may go nowhere but still), but also cutting taxes and regulatory barriers to establishing any such businesses.

3. Stop subsidising business activities that emit CO2. Buses would be a start, since the majority of bus users don't have access to a car, you might find they walk or cycle, or travel less.

4. Get government out of activities that emit CO2. Privately owned energy and transport companies wont tolerate unprofitable activities or poor rates of return, so wont subsidise prices or run poorly used services. Coal mining is the other obvious one, farming too. This also includes roads, which governments stubbornly underprice at peak times, and overprice in areas where roads are cheap to maintain (e.g. Canterbury).

So would the Greens support getting the hell out of the way of more environmentally friendly businesses, and stop subsidising sectors that produce emissions, stop owning businesses that produce emissions?

Three bills on Auckland mega city

The NZ Herald reports there are to be three bills setting up the new Auckland uber stadt rat, one to set it up as a legal entity and establish transition boards, a second dealing with representation issues and a third "detailing structure, functions, roles and powers of super Auckland council and local boards".

Maybe we'll get answers about what the new council is meant to do?

Maybe that's the time to demand that the power of general competence be abolished, as is ACT policy (and which National opposed when the Local Government Bill was being put through Parliament).

Let's take the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee in 2002 and what National said then:

"National members of the Local Government and Environment Select Committee strongly disagree with the process, policy, and detail of this bill.

National believes it will result in increased duplication of services and inefficiencies, and, when things go wrong, a lack of accountability and buck-passing. National believes Parliament should clearly define the role and function of local and regional councils.

Councils will have a freer hand to invest in particular activities but not divest in areas such as ports, housing, and water systems. This introduces a structured bias towards expanding councils and their playing an ever-increasing role in our economy and citizens’ lives. National believes that increasing the size and involvement of local government will only make harder the ambition to return New Zealand to the top half of the OECD."

Quite! So what are you going to do about it?

Phones, streets and mail not safe for children

That's my reaction to the Privacy Commissioner's absurd declaration that the "internet is not safe for children".

What is?

Travel? Talking to people on the phone? Sending letters? Talking to neighbours? Relatives? Playing sports? Climbing trees? Swimming pools? Playing in the streets?

It really becomes a matter of applying your mind to the situation, and when children are involved, an appropriate amount of supervision. Smart kids manage risk, and smart adults know the extent and degree of keeping an eye on their kids.

In the scheme of things, the internet isn't dangerous. Physically it does nothing at all other than facilitate information and conversation. Of course if you let your kids take photos and send them without permission it becomes a little riskier. If your kids seek attention from strangers then maybe it is because they can't talk to you about certain things, or they are from a home lacking a parent. As much attention should be paid to those who seek out inappropriate attention, as those who respond to it.

Meeting people you only know from the internet is risky, just as risky as pen pals once were i bet, just easier. Simple rules around never meeting people without someone else present, who is an adult, is key.

This issues comes up perenially, this time because a man was luring underage girls to talk about sex with him online. He of course is now paying a price for that, the law is strict and is in itself a deterrent. However, the internet for many kids is probably far less risky than Uncle Tom, or Cousin Jed, especially if you leave them alone, they are alcoholic, and you as parents spend large amounts of time partying, or being absent. Risks need to be in perspective. The bigger risk comes from meeting people you don't know who might abuse you. These people are often brought in by adults as friends, or partners.

However, all that gets the attention of law enforcement on the internet is not the result of adults. You see the truth is that censorship laws are producing some new perverse results - according to Wired thanks to camera phones and web cams, teenagers (they aren't children and not adults) are now being prosecuted for producing child pornography. Why? Because they take photos of themselves and send them on. In one ridiculous case a teenage couple have been prosecuted because they filmed themselves having sex, and sent it to no one.

The internet is presenting new challenges to parenting, it also means taking a realistic approach to what young people do. It is more an opportunity than a risk. It offers unparalleled access to information and entertainment. It makes it far easier for young people who feel isolated and alone to explore the world, and learn about themselves and others. In short it offers far more good than bad.

Children shouldn't be exploring the internet unsupervised, but as they get older they should be allowed more and more freedom. They will talk to friends online, they may make new ones, and yes, some will explore sexuality - like they have for time immemorial. Yes, they should be protected from being hurt and harmed by predatory adults, but given the rate of teenage pregnancy far too many are experimenting with each other in the riskiest way. Wouldn't many parents rather that their teenagers sat behind a computer looking at pictures and chatting to strangers they never meet, than went out partying, getting drunk, and risking getting pregnant (or someone pregnant) or catching something nasty?

Risk is all around, it is about life. The best gift any parent can give to their children is to nurture their ability to reason, balance risk with opportunity and make informed judgments, and to be monitored, and observed as they mature with that ability.

The internet is no different.

Bludging kiwis should thank Rudd government

$A22 billion of spending on 100 new fighter jets and 12 submarines by Australia is a substantial commitment over the next 10 years, along with confirmation that its military alliance with the US is the cornerstone of its defence policy.

Have no bones about it, this means Australia is maintaining its strong defence presence in the region and its ability to project its air and sea power around its lengthy territorial waters. It is a commitment Australia has maintained throughout the Cold War and since.

Sadly, New Zealand has eroded its military commitment to the defence of the South Pacific in several stages since the mid 1980s. It started with the effective abandonment of ANZUS when the Lange government, following extensive goading from the left of the Labour Party, took an ideological hardline against the US Navy. The Lange government refused to accept a conventional powered, nuclear incapable ship because the US "neither confirmed nor denied" it carried nuclear weapons.

Following that, New Zealand has eroded its blue water navy to 2 frigates, and eliminated its air strike capability. As a result, with New Zealand effectively unable to contribute more than 2 frigates (and the army) to an overseas actions, its contribution to the collective defence of the South Pacific is derisory, through no fault of the forces themselves.

So New Zealand should be grateful at Australian taxpayers continuing their commitment. The truth is that the New Zealand armed forces are capable of maintaining some defence of the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) from illegal fishing, but not any serious attack, or assisting Australia in the likelihood of any attack.

From Lange to Clark, New Zealand governments have wimped out of defence, because New Zealanders always felt safe from invasion. The idea of contributing to a defence alliance has seemed fanciful, suiting the "independent foreign policy" stance of the so called "peace movement".

Defence is a core role of the state, and while the current government will be fiscally constrained in a recession to remedy it, it should be addressed over the medium term. Meanwhile, a big "thank you" should be extended to the Rudd government, for maintaining Australia's defence forces over the longer term, and in effect, New Zealand at the same time, whilst New Zealand can effectively contribute proportionately so little in return.

How Turkey put back membership of the EU

One of the more presumptious statements of President Obama in the past month has been to support Turkey's membership of the EU. An understandable position, but I suspect had George Bush said it, Europe would be seething with "imperialist" and damnation that the US was meddling in EU affairs. Given the USA is not a member of the EU, for it to openly express a view that it should accept a new member is rather rude at best.

However, the bigger issue itself has long been a debate between those who believe such membership would promote the acceptance of secular Turkey's modernisation, a predominantly Muslim country accepted into the European club, vs. those who fear the mass migration of Turks into the rest of the EU, swamping the state welfare, health, education and housing systems, and putting EU boundaries at Syria and Iraq, rather than Turkey as they are today. Besides 6 countries of eastern Europe, plus all of the former USSR (besides the Baltic states) remain out of the EU. A bigger case can be made for the integration of the former Yugoslav republics in the EU than Turkey.

Christopher Hitchens argues in Slate that Turkey itself has put its own case backwards by a long shot. It did this by:
- Opposing the PM of Denmark as a candidate for NATO Secretary General, because he refused to interfere with Danish newspapers publishing the famous "insulting to Islam" cartoons because he had no legal right to do so;
- Opposing the PM of Denmark as a candidate for NATO Secretary General, because he refused to shut down a Kurdish language satellite TV channel, accusing it of being sympathetic to terrorism.

Hitchens argues that these show Turkey is not willing to accept the values of the EU of free speech and tolerance, and with its continued discrimination against Kurds, and denial of the Armenian genocide of 90 years ago, Turkey has a fair way to go yet.

"Put it like this: Obama's "quiet diplomacy" has temporarily conciliated the Turks while perhaps permanently alienating the French and has made it more, rather than less, likely that the American goal of Turkish EU membership will now never be reached. And this is the administration that staked so much on the idea of renewing our credit on the other side of the Atlantic. This evidently can't be done by sweetness alone."