Metiria Turei - and a childlike view of water

Metiria Turei is claiming that a study from DOC that indicates economic benefit of $136 million from water derived from its own land (Te Papanui Conservation Park estate) means that water should be free everywhere (opposing tradeable water rights). What delusional nonsense.
.
For starters, the study said this benefit was equivalent to the actual cost of getting the water from another source. If the water isn’t there, then someone has to pay for it. Secondly, the park costs money to maintain and ensure that the water supply from the catchment area remains clean. That isn’t free – it gets paid for by taxpayers. Far wiser, and a far better use of water resources would come from charging for the use of water from the conservation park. At somewhat less than $11 million p.a. (the cost of alternative supplies to those benefiting from the water), this could ensure the Conservation Park is maintained and makes a healthy profit. A profit from selling water!
.
On top of that, pricing water means users value it more. It is less likely to be wasted, and more likely to be conserved, which I thought the Greens would be thoroughly in favour of.
.
Metiria lacks much understanding of what is going on. Of course there is economic benefit in clean drinking water, people demand it and are willing to pay for it. To claim “commoditisation” of water is a dirty word, is sheer nonsense – otherwise people would take what they could, without any concern about where it came from or how much they used, and then wonder why not much is left.
.
Take this statement of economic vapidity of the likes a 12 year old would be able to see through:
.

“There are those who think the economic value of water overwhelmingly rests on its potential for exploitation for hydro or irrigation purposes. This evidence suggests otherwise. The study estimates that the park's contribution to Dunedin's water supply is about $93 million, which dwarfs the $31 million supplied from this same source for hydro-electricity purposes, as well as the $12 million that the park provides for irrigation of Taieri farmland.”
.
Well that does, it everywhere there is water it is best used for a city water supply, even if there is no city, even if there are torrents of water going down a river beside arid farmland. How bloody stupid can she be? In THIS case, the conservation estate is convenient to Dunedin city, there is only one hydro dam and little prospect for another (have a guess who would oppose it), and there is little farmland that needs irrigation. Elsewhere water may be better used to produce clean renewable hydro electricity for the electric trains and trolley buses the Greens love (funny how hydro power is good if it exists but bad if you want more of it unless it is for electric trains, then you should conserve, but the price should be cheap!!). In other cases, it has enormous value for irrigation.

.

The solution is simple. Water has value for all the purposes listed above, and others, for fisheries, for recreation and for industrial purposes. Its value in particular cases can only be determined by a market, and who is willing to buy or sell it. The greatest move to improve water conservation would be to require councils to operate water as commercial concerns then privatise them - but you wont hear the Greens agreeing to that. It means that the government couldn't control it, and they are, after all, statists through and through.

.

(and I haven't even raised whether or not a study commissioned by DOC that would suit its interests has been independently peer reviewed. Imagine the Greens accepting a report commissioned by Telecom on New Zealand's broadband environment, or DPF for that matter!)

Russel Norman's links Easter Island and the WTO and comes up with ?

Yesterday I described how Russel Norman’s speech of 4 June on becoming Co-Leader was intellectually vapid on matters like “resources running out” and the evil of roads.
.

Today I’m going to attack his view on the World Trade Organisation (WTO). To his credit he describes largely accurately what the WTO commitments mean, something Sue Kedgeley never seemed to get her head around. I described this in a previous post, and it means quite gloriously that local content quotas on TV and radio are against government treaty commitments that are not easy to get out of. Officials told Labour this when it got elected, and the National Government that signed up to those commitments knew it at the time - the problem is that leftwing Labour didn't want to listen, but eventually had to accept it.
.
Russel said:
.
“The commitments that these parties have made under the World Trade Organisation are drawing a tighter and tighter net around the capacity of national governments to act in the interests of their citizens. And they are limiting the ability of governments to act in a sustainable manner.”
.
In other words, he is complaining that WTO commitments restrict governments on interfering with the voluntary transactions of citizens engaging in trade and investment across borders. The “interests of their citizens” is actually the interests of those who produce inefficiently, wasting labour, capital, energy and land to produce something that consumers are not willing to buy, without prohibitions or taxes on the competing products. This means putting up the price of goods and services, or even prohibiting the trade in goods and services that sellers and buyers are willing to trade in. There is no sustainability in protecting industries where, basically, not enough people are willing to buy enough of their products to keep them going, without state intervention. The WTO binds countries to open, transparent trade and to reducing the barriers to free trade – this is ENTIRELY in the interests of their citizens, because they are able to produce, sell and buy freely, without Russel sticking his beak in the way. He can buy "fair trade" goods, or good certified to be environmentally friendly if he likes - all of those schemes are voluntary, and fine for those wishing to sell and buy them, at a premium. No force involved.
.
Russell then said “In the 1990s the National Party Government made commitments to the WTO under the audiovisual services section of the General Agreement on Trade in Services. Now this rather obscure commitment means that the New Zealand government can no longer introduce compulsory New Zealand content quotas on radio and television without being in breach of its WTO commitments. And these WTO commitments are effectively irreversible within the WTO rules because any country which tries to withdraw trade liberalisation commitments must compensate every other country in the world that thinks it may suffer somehow as a result.”
.
He’s absolutely correct. Not only that, but New Zealand has similar commitments under CER with Australia. Unlike Russel, I think this is good. It protects New Zealand television and radio stations from state enforced control of what they broadcast.
.
He continues "So when the Labour-led Government came into power in 1999 they sought to implement mandatory minimum New Zealand content quotas on radio and television. They had promised to do this in the election campaign and such local content quotas are very common around the world as countries seek to defend their cultural identity. But the new government was told by their officials that they could not without breaching their WTO commitments. They were forced to back down.

Had they proceeded they could have faced action taken against New Zealand in the WTO by countries that sold television programs into New Zealand, like the US, claiming that their television production companies were being discriminated against by this New Zealand content quota, in beach of New Zealand's WTO commitments, commitments remember that were made by the previous National Party government”
.
Actually Russel, they are not “very common around the world”, you see them in Australia, Canada and France. The UK does not have them, nor does the USA and most other countries are confident enough of their local culture (and often language) that the government see little need. Otherwise he is correct.
.
“The National Party government made WTO commitments that effectively bind all future governments and parliaments and prevent them from introducing minimum New Zealand content quotas on radio and television. A new government was elected on a platform of introducing local content quotas but were told they could not because of the commitments of a previous government. And if they had proceeded anyway, then trade lawyers meeting in secret in Geneva would have told us to change our law or face trade sanctions. This is not conspiracy theory this is actually how trade law and the WTO actually works.”
.
It’s called a treaty Russel. Labour enters into treaty commitments too, and New Zealand has commitments under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) that stop it acquiring nuclear weapons (one Russel probably supports). Now, I’m not advocating that this should change – but this is binding, and New Zealand would have to formally withdraw from the NPT (like North Korea did) to develop nuclear weapons. New Zealand could do two things to introduce quotas, either liberalise other areas of trade to compensate (e.g. eliminate all tariffs immediately), or formally withdraw from the WTO. I suspect Russel would support the latter, and not give a damn that other countries could block our products in “their citizens’ interests”. The Green movement in the UK for example sells the nonsense that it is better to buy local produce instead of food or wine from New Zealand, because of the distance they travel – ignoring how unsustainable much European agriculture is through subsidies.
.
Russel then follows on with a non-sequitur that:
.
"Now if we are to avoid the fate of the Easter Islanders then we need international environmental treaties that empower governments to discriminate on the basis of how products are made - that is whether they were made in an environmentally harmful way or not. But currently if governments do this then the WTO will rule against them in the same way that they would rule against New Zealand if we tried to introduce mandatory minimum New Zealand content quotas."
.
Now hang on. The fate of the Easter Islanders? Oh yes, he described the old Rapa Nui society that worshipped statue building, fell all of the trees and then embarked on civil war because they consumed more than they produced. Pretty much true too. That story in itself says a lot about a society with no property rights (according to some Green supporters, property rights are just a social contract which some libertarians worship), so no wonder that happened. The tragedy of the commons was all too evident, as a native people besotted with worshipping that which is not real (cult of the statue), did not trade and exchange value and manage scarce resources (the management of scarce resources is called economics – something the Greens are sceptical about because they know so little about it). So no wonder trees went to the first comer, nobody maintained land for wood, fruit or hunting and a culture of pillage was the order of the day. This has nothing to do with free trade or the WTO, and everything to do with primitive people with no concept of trade, contract and property rights. Remember, the Greens are rarely advocates for property rights, and usually opponents.
.
So besides his example of Easter Island being completely wrong, he then advocates treaties that prohibit products or services if they were made “in an environmentally harmful way or not” or which are made in sweatshops. Well for starters, the example of the WTO commitments on free trade on audio-visual services can’t by any rational stretch of the imagination have anything to do with the environment or sweatshops. The entertainment industry (TV, radio, music) is hardly a sweatshop industry, in fact it is the opposite. It is full of people well paid living a dream career – to protect New Zealanders doing this from people overseas is sheer nonsense. Not only is it nonsense, but offensive. By what right does any government dictate what a privately owned broadcaster must play or not play in terms of music or TV programmes? Privately owned broadcasters are NOT owned by the state – and must be free to broadcast whatever programmes they wish, as long as they are not defamatory or involve anyone coerced to participate. The Greens, however, think New Zealand music is special, and that despite New Zealanders NOT wanting to listen to more of it (the ratings of Kiwi FM are a testament to that), the Greens want to force radio stations to play something to people who don’t want to listen.
.
Bullies.
.
New Zealand’s audiovisual sector commitments secure a level of free trade in music, movies and television programmes that is admirable. New Zealanders are not forced to watch or listen to anything, and broadcasters are not forced to programme what the state thinks it appropriate. Local content quotas are about protecting people who are some of the most fortunate in society, working and earning a living through the entertainment industry. If they can’t generate an audience on their own behalf, then a quota is merely protecting mediocrity over talent – another form of welfare.
.
Beyond that, there is another argument about whether free trade should be limited by government restrictions on importing goods or services from countries with poor environmental or labour records (define those please) – that’s another issue. I will come to that another day.
.
However, just as he failed to understand that oil wont run out, cars wont disappear and roads are not going to be empty, Russel tenuously linked a primitive culture that failed due to lack of property rights (Easter Island), New Zealand’s WTO commitments on audiovisual services and foreign producers with poor environmental records. Not a good start.

.
Russel Norman's speech
Radio quota bluff
Kiwi Fm you didn't listen to it, so now you pay for it
WTO website search engine to find specific commitments

Greens prefer tax cuts over roads

Yes!! Believe it or not, the Green hatred for asphalt and concrete, and presumably cars (and trucks) is greater than a hatred for people getting their own money back.

.

Jeanette said "But if the battle is between tax cuts and a massive spending splurge on new roads in the middle of a long term oil crisis, we might even go for the tax cuts. " (though the context is that more money on social spending would be better).

.

As Labour embarks on the biggest road building programme in New Zealand since the 1960s, aided and abetted by the Land Transport Management Act, supported by the Greens, you wonder where they got it all wrong? You see it is what happens when you politicise road funding and water down the need for efficiency in spending decisions. It is also what the public wants.

Gillian McKeith - so vile

Today I'm going let out my invective about a fraud -Gillian McKeith, host of the popular show "You are What you Eat". She used to be referred to as "Doctor". Doctor my arse.

.

Irish Comedian Dara O'Briain said "if you are what you eat then she must have eaten a shrew" he also said "she is the kind of person that as a catholic we were warned - this is what protestants look like". There are few people on television who are so self-satisfied sanctimonious and judgmental, and banal to boot. She finds overweight people who eat vast amounts of unhealthy food, and pretends to be a qualified nutritionist teaching them to (shock!) eat less, eat more vegetables and fruit, and eat less sugar and fat. Brilliant! Who would have thought...

.

Her "Ph.D" was through a distance learning programme from the (New Zealanders older than 35 will understand) Claytons College of Natural Health. The accreditation of this "college" is not recognised by the US Department of Education. She once claimed to have received it from the American College of Nutrition, but doesn't anymore. What a liar.

.

She is a member of the American Association of Nutritionist Consultants, an accreditation that has so much value that several people have managed to get their pets membership.

.

On top of all that is the drivel she spouts about nutrition. Drivel that is at best harmless, but for a woman who has made a fortune selling herself as some kind of expert, deserve to be derided. Take this:

.

"[Because] chlorophyll is high in oxygen [eating dark green leaves will] really oxygenate the blood." Huh? We get oxygen from breathing not eating Gillian.

.

"Skid mark stools [...are...] a sign of dampness inside the body - a very common condition in Britain." Um yes, we are 70% water. The skid mark stool is inside her head.

.

"All molecules have an electrical charge and a vibrational energy. Therefore, all foods, which are made up of molecules, contain these vibrational charges. The colours of foods represent vibrational energies [...] foods which are orange in colour [...] have similar vibrational energies and even similar nutrient makeup." What the hell is "vibrational energy"? Similar coloured food has similar nutrient makeup?? So butter and lemons? Salt and sugar? .

.

Why the hell does anyone give this woman the credibility of anything other than a spaced out hippy charlatan? She is thoroughly fisked in this article which is quite comprehensive about what an unscientific phony she is. The Guardian has also done a great job on her.

.

On top of that, I just loathe her superiority complex which she deserves to have none. She touts a combination of common sense and quackery, and criticises people like children for not doing what she says. There is a place for a show where stupid people are taught to eat well, especially in the UK - but not her nonsense.

.

It just encourages me to have a plate of chips and tell her to bugger off, and don't you dare look at my poo.

Russel Norman, ecologically, economically vapid

So Russel (he had to have one “l” makes him a bit more alternative) Norman is the Green’s new co-leader. Shame. His speech says a lot about what he thinks about individual freedom and the world around it, and it doesn’t say a lot about his ability to go beyond Green rhetoric and actually think.
.
His speech is full of the childlike analysis that so permeates much of the ecological left thinking. The notion that growth in GDP is necessarily at the cost of the environment. Statements like “Every year we must consume more of resources available from the planet in order to expand our material consumption” are not only untrue, but go completely contrary to the spin that renewable and sustainable development is possible. Consuming paper and wood from renewable pinus radiate forests is hardly a non-renewable resource. Water, which is constantly recycled through the atmosphere, is hardly non-renewable either. Capitalism means a constant striving for more efficient production and consumption as people maximise their own welfare – and that efficiency is only enhanced if people pay the market price for resources, which, by the way, “we” do not own. They are owned by those who discover or create them.
.
“And our society is building its great memorials to the folly of short-sighted resource use and these memorials have four lanes and are made of tarmac and the great priests of the cult of GDP growth will cover the land with their roads as a memorial to their folly.” This brings up the complete utter banality of the Green argument on oil and transport. Besides the nonsense about oil running out “Our geologists tell us that the oil is close to half used up already, and yet still we are consuming it as if it were infinite”. Actually no “we’re” not, commercial vehicle owners and operators, airlines, shipping companies are all investing in more fuel efficient vehicles, all the time. The Boeing 747 of today consumes 40% less fuel than the first one, and that isn’t because of any government decree, or even environmental concern, it is because airlines don’t want to waste fuel. People ARE driving less with high petrol prices, government petrol tax revenue is tracking downwards as a result. At such high prices, oil companies are scrambling to find more oilfields to exploit, so it wont run out, and alternatives are thriving – it’s called the market, don’t worry your empty little head Russel, it will be ok. The same thing happened once before with firewood and coal.
.
So once you get over oil running out, the notion that roads wont be needed anymore is truly antediluvian. The land is hardly getting “covered with roads”, and roads will always be needed for buses, trucks and cars!! Yes cars!! Personal transport is NOT going anywhere. Cars started becoming seriously popular in the 1930s, when the cost of owning and running a car was many times higher as a proportion of one’s income than it is today. Traffic is not going to subside to pre 1930s levels – ever!! The Greens wont admit it, but most of the lower income people they claim to care about LOVE cars, they own them and use them. Maybe in the longer term, they will be hybrids, or powered by other fuels if oil does become too expensive to use (it wont "run out"), but there will always be private transport because it is the most convenient, most comfortable and most flexible, as well as ensuring you travel with who you want - not the random roulette wheel of whether you sit next to someone nose picking, with BO or who takes up two seats.

.

Every country in the world has cities with plenty of traffic, except North Korea – I suspect Russel and many of the Greens envy that aspect of North Korea at least. They are crazy if they think roads are going to empty in the next decade or so, I suspect it is more wishful thinking that alarmist warning of what they truly believe.
.
On top of that, the Green’s preference for interfering with market signals is shown with this little statement:

.
“I don't think that a government that just announced a massive increase in road spending while projecting a long term decline in public transport funding really understands the everyday experience of people caught between rising fuel prices and an inadequate under funded public transport system. So I'm going to write a letter to Michael Cullen to invite him over for dinner one night but there is one condition.

He has to join me on the bus home first - the number two at around 5pm on a weeknight. He can see how overcrowded the buses are.

"

.
Well for starters Russel, you live in Mt. Cook, which means it is easily walking distance from Parliament (around 2km), even if you only want to walk part of the way there are countless near empty buses running between Parliament and Courtenay Place. Clearly the fare is too low, because it isn’t incentivising you to be as Green as you should be or raising enough money to fund replacement trolley buses. Russel should save money, walk or bike, and leave room for others on the bus. Public transport isn’t sacred, it uses fuel too, and car users have been subsidising it for years. Public transport subsidies have increased 250% under Labour, but patronage has increased by about 20% - how efficient or environmentally friendly is that? Have a look at Hamilton, where subsidies have more than doubled, patronage hasn’t even increased by 50%.

.
Oh dear… (more on Russell’s simple simon approach to the world later)

.

(Besides, Michael Cullen uses public transport twice a week - it's just a lot faster and generally more comfortable on an Air New Zealand ATR72 than on a bus).