Posts by Dave Hansford
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to Samuel Buckman,
No its not, you’ve just asserted that this is the case. Would you mind providing some sources for those very dramatic claims? Not everyone lived through that period, nor, I suspect, did everyone who did experience it the same way.
I listed at length the successive conquests of neoliberal policy, Samuel. These took place over a period of more than three decades. That's a lot of time. Billions of dollars of World Bank loans, conditional upon accepting and implementing free market policies – is a lot of money. The zeal is evidenced by the fact that you now live under a neoliberal system, as does most of the western world and much of the east. These are not claims – they're a matter of historical fact, in plain view.
-
Envirologue: Too Big to Fail – Why…, in reply to Samuel Buckman,
Samuel: there is no contradiction here... the neoliberals understand climate change, they believe it is happening, and they have no intention of doing anything about it. That's because to accept that climate change needs to be combatted would be to A: admit that their system has failed, and B: allow the kind of reforms I've outlined to prevail. When I say they're way ahead of us, that means they have their response already drafted and voted on.
-
Hi Simon: I agree that the numbers, as a percentage, are not huge (although significant, given the gravity of California's plight). What I'm pointing out here is the fact that human are using their precious water to search for more oil and gas. I think that speaks volumes about A: humans, and B: the zealotry of the prevailing economic-political system.
-
Hi Ben Wilson: Loved your post, but gulped when I saw this: "I found it interesting that Bruce Beetham’s election was mentioned in the initial post as almost a pivotal moment for Dave Hansford in ideologically committing to neoliberalism. Since Beetham was not a neoliberal, I’m not sure I see the connection. Social Credit has all but entirely disappeared since the 1980s, and with it one of the major economic alternatives."
Seems I made it sound like I committed to neoliberalism (the very thought...), when in fact, it was Social Credit's ideas that turned me into a political animal. Beetham was most certainly not a neoliberal (although he veered quite wildly off-track towards the end), and that was the primary appeal for me. At the time, I thought I was committing to a third way....
Loving where this thread is going... excellent comments and interesting perspectives. Thanks everybody...
-
I've no problem with taxes at all, but a buoyant social sector would, of course, depend critically upon creating a high-wage economy first. That's not something the conservatives will allow...
-
I think most of us agree that we don't want a return to Muldoonism, nor a corpulent, inert welfare state. It seems a given that whatever comes next, it will be funded by an open economy, but I'd caution against assumptions that neoliberalism is "what were stuck with." That, to coin a good old conspiracy mantra, is exactly what they want you to think.
Yes, the dominance of fundamental capitalism is almost complete, but it's still mortal. One thing's for certain, so long as we accept it, that's what we ARE stuck with. Our challenge is to reimagine the country – and the world – we want. Starting with the values we want to reinstate – the social contract we might draft. New Zealand badly lacks a vision – it's there for the taking.
-
Envirologue: The Agony of Vanuatu and…, in reply to Amanda Wreckonwith,
Yes Amanda: I'm saying that producers should be entirely liable for the pollution they cause in the prosecution of their business, just as the Government has said the forestry and energy industries already must be. If it can't turn a profit without polluting a public amenity/resource – air or water, say – and without forcing the public to pay the costs of that pollution, any business fails the standard measure of social, economic and environmental sustainability.
Who pays the costs of the multi-million dollar cleanups of Lakes Rotorua, Ellesmere – the Waikato River? The public. Who will pay the costs – if ever we incur them – of our missed emissions targets? The public. Who pays to bail out farmers when drought – exacerbated by climate change – bites down? The public. This is straight-out protectionism, at the hands, ironically, of a neoliberal Government that under any other circumstances decries subsidy of any kind. It seems they can put market forces aside when it benefits their traditional voter/donor base.
You may believe that all this is fair and equitable. I don't.
-
Sorry Amanda: that should have been" 2000-cow herds" in the earlier post...
-
Envirologue: The Agony of Vanuatu and…, in reply to Amanda Wreckonwith,
Hi Amanda: of course, this Government has gone to great lengths to ensure that it WON'T assume any liabilities for emissions to date – and I suspect it will certainly push to have anything out to at least 2020 written off as well – especially from ag. emissions.
Regarding the effective exporting of emissions – we've already seen the meat and dairy industries successfully convince the New Zealand public that they must pay the going international rate for goods produced just down the road from them. I wouldn't be surprised to see them simply externalise any extra costs/liabilities upon domestic consumers in exactly the same way, assuming of course that they're ever forced to start accounting for their own climate pollution.
Regarding the costs of de-stocking: there are plenty of examples and studies around showing that diary, at least, doesn't necessarily have to be intensive to be profitable. The main winners so far from intensification have been the banks. If we would just start charging farmers for water and greenhouse emissions, the economics of 200-cow herds would change overnight, especially if dairy prices continue a long-term downward trend. And given what successive droughts have cost the country in lost productivity and emergency relief to farmers, the notion that de-intensifying must automatically mean losses is not at all clear-cut.
-
Envirologue: The Agony of Vanuatu and…, in reply to Samuel Buckman,
Hi Samuel: Here, I'm talking about metrics, which can be thought of as a ‘common currency’, or ‘exchange rate’ that allows emissions of different gases to be compared and traded in a common market.
Metrics help answer important questions: how much weight should a country give to reducing methane emissions, compared to nitrous oxide or carbon dioxide? If a company or individual were to reduce CO2 emissions by one tonne, how much CH4 would that equate to? If it costs the same money to reduce a tonne of CH4, or 20 tonnes of CO2, which would be ‘better’ for the climate?
Answers to these questions depend on the relative contribution each gas makes to the greenhouse effect. Some gases are more effective at trapping heat than others, and each gas has a different lifetime in the atmosphere. Scientists recognise those different properties, and have developed metrics that aim to give a simple weighting to each gas. This allows for easier comparison of their effect on the climate, and the cost of mitigating them.
Methane is known to have a much more powerful warming effect than CO2, but it doesn't last as long in the atmosphere. The New Zealand delegation believes that the current "weighting" applied to methane is open to debate. If they can get a lesser warming effect applied to it, that would – on paper – lessen New Zealand's emissions and reduce any liability. It is, like the rest of their position, all about smoke and mirrors.