Posts by Euan Mason
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I agree with Martin.
As my daughter in law suggests:
"Should stupid referendum questions, as part of a healthy democratic society, be legal in New Zealand?"
-
Open letter to MPs:
I am writing in support of the repeal of section 59 of the Crimes act.
Our recent referendum on the "smacking" issue contained a misleading question, ironically a kin to, "When did you stop beating your wife?", and the results of the referendum cannot be used to support a reinstatement of the old section 59.
For my parents' generation it was relatively routine for husbands to smack their wives, and we now look at that and wonder how it was tolerated. Future generations will look back on child smacking and wonder how it was tolerated.
Research consistently and conclusively shows that non-violent parenting is generally better for children than parenting that includes smacking.
We are making progress towards becoming a less violent society. The new law sets out an important guideline for parents that will have wonderful outcomes for future generations. Please do not set us back by reinstating the old section 59 of the crimes act.
-
Good on us for having an Oxymoronic question in a CIR! The best response is to look at the intent and vote "yes". Just to prove to Russell that we were paying attention when the question was framed:
http://euanmason.blogspot.com/2008/02/smacking-is-not-good-parental.html
-
You are probably right that some opposition to the RMA comes from people who are reluctant to face a conflict between their money making and the quality of an environment they wish to plunder. There is another side to the RMA argument, however, that involves inconsistency between local authorities about what is ok for the environment, about rational arguments squashed by local prejudices, and frustrated business people who honestly wish to look after our environment but can't find their way through the morass of legislation. In order to find a good solution we have to correctly frame the problem, and I'm afraid your polemic was too one-sided to be a real step forward.
-
"Laughable" doesn't really do it justice. Rodney is pursuing a small slice of the popular vote in a way that is not only damaging our credibility, but will cost us dearly financially and hurt the environment - three blows against the nation from just one incredibly stupid, ill-informed ACT policy.
A recent report in New Scientist pointed out that the world is more than meeting its Kyoto commitnments, so the line that, "nobody is meeting their commitments and so it will all be scrapped" is just ignorant bullshit. If we fail to meet our Kyoto commitments we will have to pay - billions of dollars most likely.
The "review" has undermined potential investments in new forests that reportedly run into 100s of millions of dollars, i.e.: 10s of thousands of new hectares that could be soaking up CO2. If we don't plant more forests now, then during the 2020s when the 1990s plantings are harvested will see a huge hole in our national carbon accounts.
The idea that ACT, in cahoots with the "Climate Change Coalition" - Owen McShane et al. - have the inside story on climate change in the face of years of careful research by responsible scientists is manifestly stupid, and that a responsible government would allow such a small dog tail to influence policy in such an expensive, damaging way, implies a whole extra layer of stupidity.
-
'Apparently Mr Douglas "favours... every New Zealander getting the same health care and education that the rich get."'
He means having the opportunity to pay personally for those same services. Rog has a bit of a blind spot when it comes to appreciating what poverty is about.
-
Agree about Peter Montgomery laying into his commentary, although it was kind of fun waiting for the phrase to reappear; a bit like a parody of a commentary. We enjoyed laughing about it.
-
Nat Torkington really doesn't understand about trees and CO2. I could write volumes in reply, but the key points are:
1) All trees rot. Old growth forests have cycles of death and renewal. Making a sequestration distinction because trees in one type of forest might be harvested and those in another might not be is irrational.
2) All forestry sequestration solutions are stopgap measures. Placing a forest on pasture increases the CO2 storage in the landscape proportional to the average extra biomass present over time. This means that new forests are CO2 sinks, while all old forests, whether old growth or periodically harvested plantations, are just reservoirs.
3) Wood products are only sinks to the extent that wood product biomass is increasing. If we use wood to replace a house then the net CO2 store barely changes because wood from the old house is returned to the atmosphere. Most people, and some political parties, clearly have difficulty getting their heads around this.
-
Nat Torkington really doesn't understand about trees and CO2. I could write volumes in reply, but the key points are:
1) All trees rot. Old growth forests have cycles of death and renewal. Making a sequestration distinction because trees in one type of forest might be harvested and one might not be is irrational.
2) All forestry sequestration solutions are stopgap measures. Placing a forest on pasture increases the CO2 storage in the landscape proportional to the average extra biomass present over time. This means that new forests are CO2 sinks, while all old forests, whether old growth or periodically harvested plantations, are just reservoirs.
3) Wood products are only sinks to the extent that wood product biomass is increasing. If we use wood to replace a house the net CO2 store barely changes because the wood in the old house is returned to the atmosphere. Most people, and some political parties, clearly have difficulty getting their heads around this.