Friday, 30 November 2007

Bitching and Moaning

There has been some moaning and bitching about this piece that I wrote on Political Animal and my Share Investor Blog regarding the conflict that Jeanette Fitzsimons and the Labour Government have over their championing of Windflow Technologies and a shareholding that Jeanette has in the company and her involvement in changing laws and stopping normal economic development to favour Windflow Tech.

I have been told by an anonymous individual and by someone else that calls herself Jeanette Fitzsimons that Fitzsimons no longer has shares in the company. Neither of these two persons were able to furnish any proof of such a statement.

I searched high and low to find any information to the contrary but common information from all sources on the net lead me to the same conclusion. My main source was from the Greens' Website.

Does Jeanette, a family trust or her family members own Windflow Tech shares? You would have to ask yourself this question considering her involvement in putting the brakes on oil, gas, hydro and coal energy and financially penalising those industries through her actions and those of her partner in Government, the Labour Party.

An interesting speech from Deborah Coddington related to the pecuniary interests of members of Parliament where she discusses some of the points that I have covered here and incidentally another source of little Jeanette's shareholding in Windflow Tech.

Coddington, Deborah, Standing Orders

2nd August 2005


DEBORAH CODDINGTON (ACT) : I rise on behalf of the ACT party to oppose Government motion No. 3, which relates to the pecuniary interests of members of Parliament. What is the problem that this is trying to fix? All this will do is be a burden for the honest, who will agonise over it. It is so complicated and so badly drawn up that it is very difficult to see where to begin and where to end. It will build a climate of dishonesty. The crooks, who do not give a stuff, will just make it up anyway—and who will have the time and energy to trawl through everything and find out whether members have been honest? It is like taking the rich list at face value. The rich list does not even take into account people’s liabilities. All it can do is take into account their assets. The poor, diligent, honest MP who struggles to declare everything under this measure will possibly trip up, or by accident exclude something, and the media will pick it up, have a field day, and destroy him or her for no reason at all.

This measure would not have caught Donna Awatere Huata. We asked her time and again whether she had any interest, any personal gain, and she lied to us. She would not tell us the truth. It would not have picked her up. If this Parliament really wants to get down on corruption, why does it not take note of what Ian Ewen-Street said yesterday when he talked about the scampi inquiry and Mr Peters’ involvement with Simunovich Fisheries? That has never been fully explored. For instance, provision 4(1)(b) in new appendix B states: “the name of every other company or business entity in which the member has a pecuniary interest …”. Is that direct or indirect? What if a member had shares in something like the New Zealand Investment Trust? That is a very respectable trust. If a member had shares in it, he or she would not have a clue about all the things that trust does. How on earth would one list them? How would trusts like that be listed? Land holdings are mentioned further on in this measure. If we tried to get information from members on all the land and property they own they would probably tell us to go away and mind our own business.

I was very interested in what Rod Donald, the co-leader of the Greens, said. A moment ago he said that the Green Party stood for high standards and that it was the cleanest party in Parliament. They would have no trouble declaring their pecuniary interests. Why does Rod Donald not start by reading what we already have under Standing Order 164, which states: “A pecuniary interest is a direct financial benefit that might accrue … as a result of the outcome of the House’s consideration of a particular item of business.” The Greens have a particular interest in high electricity prices. They opposed Project Aqua. They oppose any energy projects. Why is that? Because it is in their pecuniary interests to have high electricity prices, because of their financial interests, through their taxpayer-funded superannuation fund, in establishing the commercial viability of wind energy. They should tell us these things. If they do not tell us these things we have to go into Google to find them out. This statement is from a press release in May 2001: “the Green Party’s Superannuation Fund have joined the growing list of investors in local wind power company Windflow Technology. Windflow director … said ‘We’re delighted that the Greens are going to be part of our company. Windflow Technology is both environmentally and investor friendly,’ … Rod Donald, said ‘Our superannuation fund has a policy of ethical investing.’” Why do they not declare that when they come into this House to argue against any power project or development that anyone cares to put up, whether it be State-owned, or, heaven help us, one of the few private ones? Not only that, Jeanette Fitzsimons owns 30,000 shares in the Green Party superannuation fund. She is one of the top 10 shareholders. One of the biggest shareholders is UK millionaire, Sir James Goldsmith, and US billionaire Delane Wyeross also owns shares.

But they have directly benefited also from carbon credits. A subsidiary of Windflow Technology, New Zealand Windfarms, won Government backing of up to $10 million to set up a 60-turbine wind farm in the ManawatÅ«. This was in December 2003. Members should listen to what the business development manager—[Interruption] It is not a scandal at all. I never said it was a scandal. I am just pointing out the—we are not allowed to use that word, but the term “conflict of interest” perhaps is a way to describe it when one stands up in this House and says that everyone has to declare their pecuniary interests, and everyone has to declare how much money they are owed over $50,000, and any debt over $50,000. I do not see the point in that. Why have it declared that someone owes a member of Parliament $50,000 or more?

Members will not have to declare it if it relates to a spouse, a partner, children, step-children, or foster children, so the dishonest ones will put all these things in the name of their spouses, partners, children, step-children, or foster children and get them to pay them. The very thing that should be declared, and the very thing we should be most suspicious of—that is, electoral campaign expenses that could be covered up—is excluded. The very thing we should be suspicious of—where someone wants to try to buy one’s vote—is the only thing that we should be declaring, and it is excluded.

But I go back to this Greens’ thing. The business development manager of the wind farm said that it would not have been viable without the Government’s award of carbon credits. It was one of the two firms named by the Minister of Energy, Pete Hodgson, to take a share of 4 million carbon credits designed to cut greenhouse gas emissions. I think the public should know these things. The public should know that the Greens stand up in this House and accuse every other party, except Labour, of being dishonest and bordering on the corrupt, yet the co-leader of the Greens did not declare all of these things, which anyone can get on the website. The Greens are strangely silent whenever anyone brings the matter up, and it is an example of how this legislation is just a nonsense. There is no problem here that we have to fix. In general, most people who come into this place are honest. If they are not, then the media are not doing their job properly, because it is the job of the fourth estate to find out what is going on and report it accurately. ACT will not be supporting this motion.

C Political Animal 2007

Thursday, 29 November 2007

15 year old Kristen Byrne's take on "Global Warming"

A message for all our dopey politicians about New Zealand's moronic march towards self imposed economic disaster in the form of bending over to global warming, carbon footprints, Kyoto and Al Gore's growing bank balance.

The Left and the Greens especially, have us on a path, to NZ before the wheel was invented.

In case you haven't found it yet, let me recommend 15 year old Kristen Byrne's insightful website, Ponder the Maunder that puts all the GW bullshit into perspective.

Ponder the Maunder was an extra credit project for Honors Earth Science, Portland High School, by Kristen Byrnes of Portland Maine.

This report is a comprehensive look at the global warming issue without financial or political bias. It uses the most updated information provided by scientists and researchers and interjects common sense, an important component missing from the global warming debate.

C Political Animal 2007

Wednesday, 28 November 2007

Christchurch March against EFB: Report

The piece below was written by Andy Moore and republished at Political Animal with his permission. From the NZ Debate Blog

Proving that even South Islanders have some passion left! Good on Andy and the rest there today.

Approximately 350 people turned out in Christchurch today for the march against the Electoral Finance bill. Starting at 1:00pm at Victoria Square, we followed Bob McCoskrie of Family First, John Boscawen and a Korean War veteran, winding through the streets of the inner city, on the way to Cathedral Square.

Two of us carried blank signs, reference to the fact that if the EFB passes into law, it may become necessary for people to protest with blank placards to avoid being fined or imprisoned simply for speaking out against the Government or a particular party!

John Boscawen spoke powerfully against the bill, and passers by stopped and joined the rally. Next, Bob McCoskrie brought people's attention to the seriousness of the bill - and also paid tribute to John for the time and money he has put into the fight so far. Then we heard from a lecturer from Canterbury University who's main and most excellent point was that...

"This bill makes it a lot harder for the challenger, and easier for the incumbent Government."

An excellent point, which only then really hit me. Of course, it is obvious that Labour is pushing this bill through as a last ditch attempt to steal the election in 08 - I just didn't quite understand how. But the statement above puts it pretty simply and accurately. I will be looking round for an audio version of his speech.

At about 1:30pm we finished up with a round of applause.

A table had been run at the starting point in Victoria Square, and then in Cathedral Square to gather signatures for the petition calling for a referendum on the question: "Should a smack as a part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?"

Click here ( for more info on the fight against the oppressive new anti-smacking law, yet another arm of Nanny State.

Monday, 26 November 2007

Helen Clark and Jenette Fitzsimon's in conflict with business

Helen Clark, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, continues to have a problem with separation of her job from conflicts of interest and possible conflicts of interest.

Apart from the numerous personality, and socio-political conflicts she has in her day to day activities the topic up for discussion here is her and her Government's numerous conflicts of interest with the business world.

We have had recently Clark herself, Micheal Cullen and other Government Ministers interfering in Air New Zealand by making public statements that have affected the share price of the airline, likewise she and her Ministers erred again in 2006 when making inappropriate comments, on several occasions, about Telecom New Zealand that lost shareholders 100s of millions of dollars.

Most recently we have had Winston Peters, a Labour Government partner and lapdog making inappropriate comments in the media about influences they could use to stop the Auckland International Airport from being sold.

The most glaring example and probably least known, is the conflict that arises from Jeanette Fitzsimons from the Green Party and her major shareholding in the listed NZ windfarm owner , manufacturer and developer, Windflow Technologies.

Fitzsimons is a partner to the Labour Government and drives Labour's "Green Agenda" for them. Fitzsimons has been responsible for passing law and changing rules to give companies like hers an advantage over competitors and as a result she has financially benefited directly from her activities in Parliament. Jenette has a knack of forgetting to mention her large shareholding in Windflow Technology when dealing with such matters when doing Parliamentary business.

You cant get more corrupt and conflicted than that but she has a good role model for her modus operandi in Al Gore, but that is another story.

If we get back to Clark's role in this though, not only is her Government culpable in the conflict of interest by allowing Fitzsimons to feather her own nest but she has also been directly championing the company with financial, moral and media support for Windflow Tech.

Helen Clark with Windflow Technology
head Geoff Henderson,centre, and Derek Walker,
chairman of NZ Windfarms, at the commissioning
of NZ Windfarms' turbines near Palmerston North.

This sort of Parliamentary, legislative and Prime ministerial support for Windflow Tech is clearly a huge conflict of interest that shouldn't be allowed to continue, although we shouldn't be surprised by this sort of conflict as it is apparent at most of our listed companies: Tim Saunders at Contact Energy, Lloyd Morrison at Auckland Airport and a host of other rapscallions and rascals at a whole host of other listed companies.

The shareholders at Windflow Tech should be worried too.

Government interference, as outlined above, can also change to the negative at a whim, should policy, Government or thinking change.

We have to remember, as shareholders in companies, however small or large our holding maybe, it is our personal property rights that are at issue here. Interference from individuals, entities, whether Government or private have no more rights than you or me and their influence shouldn't be able to be subscribed to the extent that they can change laws to suit their own agendas and line their own pockets.

C Political Animal 2007

Christchurch Electoral Finance Bill protest , Wed 28 Nov, 1.00pm

The Auckland EFB march Nov 17, 2007

Protest March Victoria Square to Cathedral Square Wednesday 28 November 12.30. March starts 1.00pm. Organiser of the Auckland and Wellington marches John
Boscawen will speak.

Get ready citizens of the South, it is now your turn to march against this attack by the sisterhood on your democratic rights to free speech and your right to criticise any sitting govt be it snivelling Lefties, National, Greens or any other colour of politics.

The passing of the Electoral Finance Bill into Law next month means your right to freely do that in election year will be removed.

I will not be able to legally write this blog!

The Greens said last week that this bill would allow more free speech. That ladies and gents is a bald faced lie, just like the one told by Helen"Teflon" Clark and Sue "I'm so cute" Bradford that the repeal of section 59(or the anti smacking bill) earlier this year wouldn't lead to parents being charged for smacking a child on the hand for being naughty, it has happened in a number of cases already.

Get out there Canterbury and protest for your right to protest against a Government that want to silence your voice.

Speak up before it is too late!!

C Political Animal 2007

Thursday, 22 November 2007

2nd Auckland EFB Protest(UPDATED)

Auckland march protesters 17 Nov, 2007

There is another protest march against the Electoral Finance Bill planned for December 1 2007 in Auckland.

The march kicks off in Aotea Square at 2.00pm heading off down Queen St to Britomart.

It is being organised once again by John Boscowan.

There is also to be a march in Christchurch Wednesday November 28 2007, details to follow.

C Political Animal 2007

Monday, 19 November 2007

Wellington March Against Electoral Finance Bill(UPDATED DETAILS)

The protest at Auckland, Sat November 17, 2007

There is a march against the Electoral Finance Bill on Wednesday 21 November 2007.
Assemble at Civic Square from 12 noon...March at 12.30PM. to Parliament.

C Political Animal : Words and Images 2007

Sunday, 18 November 2007

Winston Peters Big Baubles

Winston Peters was dressed immaculately as usual, at the Electoral Finance Bill protest, Queen St Auckland New Zealand November 17, 2007.

Winston was heard to say that he is only voting for the bill because his baubles of office told him to.

When asked by a TV3 Journo what his baubles had to do with anything Peters replied, "I didn't get where I am today without large baubles".

Peters got up and addressed the crowd but finished quickly when he soon realized that there were no TV cameras trained on him and everyone was under 40 anyway, so there were no votes to be had.

When asked about the fact that the bill, if passed, would stop free speech in an Election year Peters first blamed the journalist for asking such a profound question, then said the question of free speech for the general public wasn't a problem because he spoke for all New Zealanders and knew what they wanted anyway. He added, "what was really important was that he had free speech in an election year and what is more important than that?"

Going back to the bauble question, Winston was asked where he put them for this momentous occasion because they were not at first obvious to the casual glance.

Oh, Winston curtly replied, like the mongrel of old, "Helen has them in a vice back in Parliament".

With that, his tail between his bauble less legs Winston slinked off more like a lap dog than the mongrel of yesteryear.

C Political Animal 2007

Saturday, 17 November 2007

Day of Protest: Auckland NZ, Nov 17 2007

Well, my first political or any protest for that matter went off without a hitch today. No violence, no spitting, no guns, no hakas but plenty of well placed anger, at Helen Clark and the Sisterhood who want to pass the anti democratic Electoral Finance Bill, that will allow unrestrained spending of taxpayer dollars by Labour Pollies in Election year but the ability for private citizens to do likewise will be limited, otherwise the slammer for you buddy.

About 5000 protested the bill as they marched down Auckland's Queen St, not the 2000 reported in the NZ Herald. "1,2,3,4 we don't want your fascist law" rang out as the crowd centered down at Britomart after the half mile trek from the Town Hall.

Old people and young people alike got together on a sunny hot Saturday to protest what could be illegal next year.

I was expecting around 2000 but the crowd was at least double that.

There were banners that read "fascist" anti Clarke banners,a stuffed Winston Peters(how appropriate) New Zealand flags and individuals who symbolically had their mouths taped.

Speeches at Britomart included the organiser John Boscowen who mentioned a letter to the editor from Peter Davies, Helen Clark's Husband, who refuted that the bill was an anti democratic piece of filth and noted he was from the sociology department of Auckland University but had neglected to mention his relationship to the big cheese. My man Leighton Smith from Newstalk ZB was there, his first political protest too, he added that he didn't usually like to get involved in such things but felt so strongly about the cause that he just had to.

Touchingly there was also an 80 plus year old veteran from WW2 and Boscowen reminded the crowd what it was he had fought for and of course it was the same reason we were all there today.

Freedom and democracy.

C Darren Rickard: Images & Content

Friday, 16 November 2007

Protest March: 10.00am,Sat 17, Nov 2007

Just a gentle reminder of the march against the anti democratic Electoral Finance Bill, which will stop free speech in election year and also allow the incumbent Government, in this case Labour, to spend taxpayers money to advertise in election year while others will be capped.

In 2005 Labour stole over $800,000.00 taxpayer dollars to buy the election, it was illegal and they got away with it by changing the law and were not punished. In 2008 it will be legal if this Stalinist bill is passed this month.

Those wishing to participate should assemble in Aotea Square from 10.00am with the march to leave at 10.30am and culminate at the bottom of Queen St at Britomart.

Rain or shine. Photos from the protest will be posted here.

C Darren Rickard 2007

Monday, 12 November 2007

March for Democracy , 10.00am, Sat Nov 17, 2007

March Planned in Support of Human Rights Commision


Protest March Planned in Support of the Human Rights Commission

Saturday 17 November, Queen Street, Auckland. 10.30am.

9 November 2007

I am pleased to announce that I have today lodged an application with the Auckland City Council to lead a protest march down Queen Street, Auckland.

The council have confirmed it is my democratic right to do so, and the march will leave from Aotea Square at 10.30am and proceeding to Britomart Place.

I and others will be protesting about the combined effect of the Electoral Finance Bill and the recently introduced Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill.

The combined effect of these two bills is to massively increase the amount of taxpayer money available to existing members of parliament and political parties to fund their re-election campaigns, while severely restricting the ability of private citizens to oppose them. This is an affront to democracy in New Zealand.

The Human Rights Commission has described the Electoral Finance Bill as “inherently flawed” and has called on the government to withdraw the bill and redraft it from scratch based on the over 600 public submissions.

To date, the government has failed to act on that recommendation.

The Commission has also called on the government to allow a further round of public submissions on whatever bill comes from the select committee process. To date, the government has given no indication it will do this.

We will be marching in support of the Human Rights Commission.

Those wishing to participate should assemble in Aotea Square from 10.00am with the march to leave at 10.30am.

The march will be widely advertised in the media next week.

I will attempt to be there. My first ever political protest!!


New Zealand Herald gets nasty over Electoral Finance Bill

I have never seen the likes of this before in my life. The New Zealand Herald has used its entire front page today to rail against Helen Clark and the Sisterhood over their attempt to buy next years election by using their Electoral Finance Bill to make previous illegal spending of taxpayer money, to promote themselves, legal and to stop debate during an election year.

The Herald, usually left leaning, has come out strongly against the bill and should be congratulated for their strong stand.

This bill, if passed through in November, will put New Zealand in the position that many dictator states now find themselves in. A Government that will stop at almost nothing to get re-elected and a population that wont be able to have their democratic right to voice opposition and if they do so they could be imprisoned.

New Zealanders as a whole don't seem to be angry about this bill and what it means. They should be. Is it that we just don't care that our democracy will be no longer or are we just too stupid to see what is happening?

Lenin, Marx, Mao and Hitler would have be proud of this bill.

C Darren Rickard 2007

The Herald Editorial

Editorial: Democracy Under Attack

5:00AM Monday November 12, 2007

When is the Government going to get this message: democracy is not a device to keep the Labour Party in power.

Practically every other participant in New Zealand politics - not only parties but other interested organisations and especially guardians of political rights - has voiced concern at the implications of the Electoral Finance Bill introduced to Parliament more than three months ago.

The Human Rights Commission has described the restrictions on election activity as a "dramatic assault" on fundamental rights which "undermines the legitimacy of political processes".

The Law Society says the bill would "make participation in our parliamentary democracy an arduous and perhaps even legally dangerous undertaking for ordinary New Zealanders".

They say this because it would be illegal in election year for any organisation other than a registered political party to spend more than $60,000 (perhaps a couple of full-page advertisements) to publicise a cause that might be deemed political.

In the face of near-universal condemnation, the bill should have been withdrawn. Instead it will be tweaked to dilute some of its worst features. But the attempt to restrict non-party participation in election discussion will remain.

Labour seems determined to use the time it has left to skew electoral laws in its favour.

Not only does it mean to make election debate the preserve of political parties, it has introduced this month a second electoral outrage - a bill to extend the law legalising the use of public money for political purposes that were ruled improper by the Auditor General after the last election.

The Clark Government's refusal to bow to public opinion on this subject beggars belief. It was staggering enough last year that Helen Clark and her lieutenants could not understand why nobody else regarded their electoral pledge card as innocent information.

Now, having grudgingly repaid the public purse, they are hell-bent on giving themselves the right to raid it again.

If these bills become law, politics will be largely confined to registered parties, and they will have to be able to use parliamentary funds for election campaigns.

Both measures are designed to favour the party that has devised them. Labour fears independent campaigns by the likes of the Exclusive Brethren much more than National fears the efforts of the PPTA or the Council of Trade Unions. And Labour believes it needs public money to balance covert contributions to the National Party.

Parties have different advantages. If National has more well-heeled donors, Labour probably has the more committed and articulate foot soldiers.

National's supposed advantages were of less urgent concern to Labour when it was polling well. Now in desperation it wants to screw the scrum. It has succumbed to the old conceit of the Left that the interests of the people are identical with its own.

The interests of any healthy democracy lie in unrestricted debate, not laws that favour incumbents with public finance and suppression of free speech.

If these bills pass, they will be Labour's epitaph.

C NZ Herald 2007

Sunday, 11 November 2007

Kyoto critic comes to town


The Sun is the Main reason for "climate change".

You are not going to hear much from the sniveling lefty media about this man except to critique and denigrate him for not jumping on the Global Warming bandwagon. Watch for snivellers with closed minds like Rod Oram from the New Zealand Business Herald whose sole obsession these days seems to be how to stop his carbon footprint from getting stuck in his mouth and using it to kick the more sensible among us that know that this whole GW nonsense is just that. I agree largely with Lawson except he is a bit lightweight on GW's proponents where as I wouldn't give them an inch.

They are NUTS!

Go here to View The Great Global Warming Swindle

C Darren Rickard 2007

Kyoto Critic Comes to Town

By JENNI McMANUS - Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 11 November 2007

Contentious climate change issues have been bumped to the top of the business agenda with the release of a consultant's negative report into the economic impact of the government's proposed emissions trading scheme.

Hard on the heels of the Castalia report and its view that the government is seriously underestimating the costs of Kyoto compliance, another strong Kyoto critic flies in to town this week.

Nigel Lawson, former chancellor of the exchequer in the Thatcher government between 1983 and 1989 and father of celebrity chef Nigella, is visiting New Zealand as a guest of the Business Roundtable. On Thursday in Auckland he will give the annual Sir Ron Trotter lecture, this year on the topic of economics and climate change.

Expect strong debate from an ex-politician not known for taking prisoners. Since leaving politics, Lawson has researched and lectured widely on climate change, his most recent contribution being work on a documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle.

His message: the conventional response to global warming the bid to get global agreement among industrialised nations on reducing carbon dioxide emissions to a fixed, but arbitrary, level by 2012 is "absurd".

Even its strongest advocates concede the existing Kyoto agreement will do virtually nothing to reduce future rates of global warming, Lawson says. The US, the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions, has refused to ratify the treaty, largely because developing countries such as China, India and Brazil are effectively outside the process and determined to remain so.

What's being done with Kyoto simply isn't working, Lawson says. "There's a lot of talk and some things are in place in Europe, but while subsidies have been given to emitters (to help them adapt), they've done nothing to cut emissions. Politicians say greenhouse gases are the greatest threat facing the planet, but every year emissions get higher. I cannot see any other case where the difference between the rhetoric and the reality is greater."

Lawson argues adaptation to climate change is better than attempting to mitigate or reverse it.

Adaptation is cheaper, will more efficiently fix already existing problems (such as coastal flooding in low-lying areas) and will generally happen naturally, without government intervention, he says. Farmers, for instance, will show commonsense and change their crops, improve irrigation and cultivate areas once too cold to be economic if the climate gets warmer. Rich countries of the temperate world have an obligation to help the poor countries of the tropical world do whatever adaptation is needed, he says.

There is also the "just-in-time" solution of geo-engineering where pioneer work is being done at Stanford University to devise actions that could be taken quickly to cool the planet if necessary.

Lawson wants to see the debate shrunk to what he sees as its central focus: what has been the rise in global mean temperature in the past 100 years, why we believe this has happened and what the consequences are likely to be.

"The only honest answer is that we do not know," he says. "But it is very difficult to refine the issues because people feel so emotional. It is hard to get rational discussion going, but it is very important that we do.

"It's clear politicians think they're seen in a good light if they tell people they're saving the planet. It's wonderful grandstanding. But we simply don't know why climate change occurs and politicians can get very impatient with scientists who don't say anything definite, even when the science isn't certain." The difficulty is climatology is a relatively new and complex science "and neither scientists nor politicians serve either the truth or the people by pretending to know more than they do".

For example, many people probably aren't aware that at times during recent history the world has been warmer than at present. And while atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increased by 30% during the 20th century, global warming has occurred only in fits and starts. In fact, says Lawson, it ceased in 1998 and is not expected to resume until 2009.

Despite his views, he says he could live "up to a point" with cuts in CO2 emission levels. Even a carbon tax would be acceptable, providing the revenue was used to cut other forms of tax. But that's a different matter from putting the entire economy at risk with complex emissions trading schemes a point taken up by economist Alex Sundakov in the Castilia report. No scheme will be politically sustainable if the relative costs and benefits are not well understood and accepted by the electorate at large, Sundakov says.

Any major cuts in NZ emissions are expected to be very costly, despite government claims to the contrary, because of our high economic reliance on emissions-rich activities. Official estimates in the US and Canada put the cost between $5000 and $10,000 per household.

Nor does Lawson agree that we must do whatever it takes to avert the possibility of large-scale climate catastrophe. A number of other catastrophes are also possible, including another ice age, the prospect of nuclear war and the growth of terrorism "in an age where scientific and technological developments have brought the means of devastation within the reach of even modestly funded terrorist groups".

"Above all," he says, "in a world of inevitably finite resources, not only can we not possibly spend large sums of money on guarding against each and every possible eventuality in the future, but the more we do spend on this, the less there is available to deal with poverty and disease in the present."

C Sunday Star Times 2007

Thursday, 1 November 2007

Trevor Mallard's Anti Violence Advertisement

Trevor Mallard has made a new advertisement in the war against violence in New Zealand and I would like to be the first to unveil it to give readers the full impact.








C NZ Govt 2007

C Darren Rickard 2007