Posts by Damian Christie
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Damien, how do you reconcile this staunch support of the "war on (non-corporate-marketed) drugs" with your old job at bFM?
You don't draw a distinction between someone making methamphetamine for supply, and someone growing a couple of plants in their wardrobe? I do, and I'm pretty sure others here do too. I've been around a hell of a lot of drug use over the years (including the bFM years), managing nightclubs and so on, and I can say that having seen acid, E, GHB, speed (in its diluted powdered form), party pills and even booze in widespread use, P leaves them for dead. So many walking zombies, people losing everything they had (friends, family, houses), addicts sent to prison. I don't think it necessarily turns people into frenzied killers, like the media might have you believe, but it definitely fucks up lives.
FYI, I'm not for the 'war on drugs', in the George Bush sense. Drug abuse (and I don't automatically consider all use is abuse) is a health issue, and should be dealt with as such.
And do I necessarily have to condone every advertiser who chooses to hawk their wares on a station I'm working for? Doesn't some fundy church have an advertorial on in the morning on TVNZ; isn't there some South Auckland finance company offering usurious rates to people who can't afford to pay back their loans? Should I quit TVNZ too?
-
It might surprise, but our industrial enviromental standards massively exceed China's and a coal burning power station in China will produce more carbon dioxide than a hydroelectric dam in the South Island. And China and the South Island are on the same planet as Auckland - I know I was really scared when I found that out.
Don't they have dams in China too? And as Idiot points out, if we could use the dam power for our own electricity, we could effectively stop using coal (with some infrastructural changes along the way of course).
(As an aside, I interviewed Jeremy Moon from Icebreaker a while back - he said it was easier to find a 'green' producer of his garments in China than it was in South Auckland)
But yes, of course I realise that this is a global problem, and shifting it ain't going to help in the short term. My point being, nor should we just roll over when a major company says it's not going to internalise its externalities. Just because it's cleaner than moving to China, should Comalco get special treatment not afforded to anyone else for whom moving is not an option? We shouldn't become a 'safe haven' for companies who don't want to fall into line.
China is a massive problem for the environment, and the world nations need to put pressure on them. Personally, I can't do a lot about it. Nor can our Government by itself. But eventually they have to see sense (don't they?) or feel pressure of sanctions or whatever it's going to take. And the only way we can get to that point is by making the first move.
Contrary to what the Nats would have you believe, NZ is not 'going first' or 'leading the world' when it comes to lower its emissions. And even if we were, is that such a bad thing? Because not every business will relocate to China - for economic, social or whatever reason, some will choose to stay and clean up their act. And when they do, it means a better global environment for the South Island, and China. Because as you so helpfully point out, we're all on the same planet.
-
First, the P:
Maybe. Or maybe the reporters wound him up a bit and edited it out. And I fail to see what the fact that perfectly legal household substances are available in normal shops is an issue.
You really believe this? No doubt some editing went on, but the guy is there, on camera, quite clearly saying he knows what the guy is up to, offering him a cheap deal if he wants to bulk buy the products, telling him to be careful, and warning that the cops will sniff around if he tries to buy bigger containers.
I'm not saying the guy has (necessarily) done anything against the law, but offering a discount to a guy who's admitted he's buying materials to make P? Isn't that, um, maybe a little bit immoral?
And personally, yes I did find it a little surprising that 'ordinary household ingredients' - which normal people need to buy how much of, how often? - are being sold in bulk under the potato chips. It's like when NOS was big, did the dairy owners suddenly think there was a massive increase in wasted people making shitloads of their own whipped cream at 7 in the morning?
You mean assault, intimidation and possible kidnap.
Not what I had in mind, although I could see how angry some people might get in the circumstances. I was more thinking boycotting, shunning, and yes, perhaps a bit of verbal abuse on the street.
Personally, rather than see harmless dairy owners hounded, I'd prefer to watch Ms Lewis get her tits out.
As I've said above, I think it's a big leap between "possibly acting within the law" and "harmless" in this case.
-
There are a few comments re: the TVNZ's "p-ingredient-shock-expose" over in this thread
Yeah, I've just seen that and commented there. I disagree with a few of the punters who are trying to play it down. I think it was a bloody good sting - the dairy owner who clearly knew what was going on, what he was providing, and for what purpose.
I wouldn't be surprised if the guy is run out of town.
-
Speaking of drugs, did anyone else watch Lisa Owens rather hysterical drugs story on TVNZ last night in which the outraged wrath of the TVOne news crew was visited upon a witless rural dairy owner who was selling (perfectly legal) speed precursors?
I watched it Danyl, and I actually thought it was pretty bloody good. Yes the things she bought were vaguely commonplace, but in that combination and quantity?
As the story progressed, it just got better and better. The dairy owner knew all too well what the guy was buying it for, and as he stated "it's got nothing to do with me..." but "be careful". He then offered a bulk discount, and said he can't order the bigger containers because "the bloody cops" will be all over me.
As far as hidden camera stuff goes, IMHO, it was a beauty.
I'm pretty sure I heard Owen claim that P sells for $1000 dollars a gram. Now I have little to no experience with the stuff, but since cocaine retails for about a third of that price
So you admit you know nothing about it, but take the opportunity to have a crack at the journalist anyway?
I know often the media grossly inflate the dollar value of drugs (I think the police do too, so it's all a lot more scandalous) but in this case she's roughly correct. In fact, given that most dealers will put a lot less than a point (0.1 of a gram) into the average point bag, you can probably get a bit more than 10 x $100 point bags from each gram.
-
Oh... so much to talk about.
Right. First of all
Brent: There is solar hot water heating, and solar electricity generation, two different things. So yes, if you have solar hot water heating, you can't put electricity into the grid. But you can have BOTH on the one house (or in the cases I studied, have the electricity generating solar on a farm barn roof).
... is not valid. And of course, the further south you go, the less sunlight you get, due to the shorter days and the aspect effects
Right, well again, two of a number of the families I spoke to for N&S, who have gone completely off the grid, *are* based in South Canterbury. They were cut off for two weeks with the big snows when the grid. They now have total solar in one place, and solar + wind in the other. They both have diesel generators as a back up, but the system is designed so they won't need to use it. But yeah, Antarctica might be a different case, at least 6 months of the year.
Andrew: Yes, you do need the equipment, the meter, a buyer, a seller etc. But that's really not that hard, and is commonplace across Europe, and increasingly US and even Australia. It will usually require the Govt to twist arms in the first instance though. And the power companies have to pay more than they do for coal, yes, but at the same time they don't have the cost of maintaining the plant on your roof.
Mark: I agree, smaller generators closer to homes is part of the long term solution, but I also think the dams will continue to play a big part overall. As for the EECA loan, I understand there are big issues, such as locking customers into using certain providers (who in turn have their own issues), but perhaps that's another discussion for another day.
-
Damien, I don't think I'm with you on solar power being the answer...While the power is 'free' you still have to pay off the capital and maintenance - last time I worked the numbers it was about five times the retail price of power.
The people I interviewed worked out it would have paid for itself in 10-20 years. Not factoring in any massive increase in the cost of power in the meantime. It won't happen overnight etc. But what you're also getting, with a more comprehensive system, is *security*. No cold showers, no two weeks cut off from the grid while they dig you out from the snow.
why use heat to make electricity to heat water?
Absolutely. And why make electricity down south to heat the jug on my stove in Auckland? Home Solar hot water heating makes a lot more sense than solar electricity generation in the first instance. But if there's leftover, put it into the grid.
And I don't think it's about having subsidies at all. The main guy I interviewed for the (plug) N&S piece is flat out in this industry, and says it's economical without them, he says the best thing the Govt can do is get rid of red tape, and the overpriced building consents some councils charge (like $1000 in one case) for putting solar up.
-
Oh, and Paul:
seems to me that hydro and wind are a great mix - we'll just shut the hydro off and let the lakes fill when the wind blows right?
Check out the North & South piece for other ideas along the same vein. Personally I think the answers are a lot closer to home, such as more solar panels, people being able to sell the power from their roof back to the grid during the day. Seems to work lots of places overseas, but we're only just starting to consider it here.
-
See, and *this* is why I through questions open for discussion. To get proper answers. Those question marks aren't rhetorical you see.
Rich: My fault, I'm mixing points, but I wasn't so much thinking about the climate change aspect of shutting Tiwai Pt, more our current issues with electricity. But I didn't say that, so my bad. And -transmission issues aside- given our current electricity supply is about 2/3 renewable, 1/3 fossil, I wonder what would happen if we suddenly lost 15% load? (This is another genuinely open question) - would it come equally off everything, would they ease off the damns, or would they stop throwing coal into the fires?
Andrew, good points about Tiwai Pt. Obviously there are downstream economic effects, but I didn't think about the transmission issues. There'd definitely be a rejig needed, but for an extra 15%, would it be worth it? Also worth noting here that I believe Comalco have a partially fixed price agreement with their suppliers, so it's possible with power being at something of a premium (and likely to become more so), that they could make more selling it on the spot market in the medium term...
Don: I don't actually think there'll be teleportation in 2050. Or that the earth will be molten lava. Or that we'll still be eating Tasty Cheese. I was making a funny. As for tax cuts, I don't expect a lot, ever (I've done the maths), but $665 million here, $665 million there, it all adds up. Especially when we've repeatedly been told that times are tough and we all have to tighten our belts, it's just a little, I don't know, contradictory.
-
But you'd think that by now, someone would get Williams on a very short choke chain
Let's not forget he was also responsible for getting the public all excited that Labour was planning to announce tax cuts before the last election.
Employment is priced based on demand, not on cost.
Things might be tight, but leaving a job and finding another in this small pond is not quite that easy. Take my industry, TVNZ gave meagre pay increases to most people over the past few years (those of us who were lucky enough to avoid redundancy), so unless TV3 are offering something better, what choice have you got but to accept the 2% extra p.a.?