I wonder if any political party can be seen as a "charity" and not a parasite
Politics NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
Whether you like or don't like what the Greens are doing in Germany, they've positioned themselves to work with most parties. The Greens here have pushed themselves so far to one side, they can only really have influence once through an election cycle.
Whether I like it or not?1?
Bro is the goal;
1. Improve the environment regardless?; or
2. Make sure the Greens are in power?
Because right now I'm seeing ideology in real time. Who cares if we pollute, burn coal, dig up the environment, impoverish the country.
As long as we can say the Greens are in charge
As long as we can say the Greens are in charge
Rick O’Shay
Contributor
We seem to get through a bit. Imported 700k tonne in 2022 and 1.8m tonne in 2021.Go Greens!!!
Germany's energy U-turn: Coal instead of gas – DW – 08/04/2022
Berlin has realized it will never again import as much energy from Russia as before the Ukraine war. So the challenge is to wean Germany off its dependence on Russian energy sources, and quickly. The question is how.www.dw.com
Alarming considering we have the 13th largest coal reserves in the world
To be fair the voter base is who dictates the policy, which is why both major parties are so vanilla and not inspiring. Labour ran on CGT under cunliffe and were crucified, fast forward and years later questions are being asked why NZ doesn’t have a CGT. Cunliffe wasn’t the right salesman at the time and key was.
TBH, I'd think it's a combination of both.... improving the environment while being in a position of power to do it. Far more change can be affected from within the government than from the opposition benches.
The problem with the NZ Greens is they "appear" united but there has always been a power struggle within them between their environmentalists like Shaw and their social campaigners like Swarbrick. In days gone by, the same struggle was there with Russel Norman and Jeanette Fitzsimons vs Sue Bradford.
But they have had all the power and done nothing.
The problem with most Green parties is they dont understand science or economics. Case in point Germany, they are now poorer and dirtier than before.
Also my mum is a card carrying Greens member and I grew up anti nuclear, until I learned the folly of both.
Norwegian Green party 60 year history, max 4% of the vote (this year). Has far stronger environmental protections than both Germany and NZ.
Policies matter, names dont.
Policies matter, names dont.
They have some challenges in front of them as a society with a rapidly aging workforce. They are going to have to make some unpopular decisions like they did opening their borders to immigrants when those displaced arrived and were accepted to fill their workforce.
You would think with all the virtue signaling and grandstanding from these wealthy people who want to contribute more that there would be more donations for those parties that want to implement those policies that make society more equitable.
Last edited:
Bullshit.
They have to wind back their retarded closure of their nuclear power plants. The flow on effects from that can be seen everywhere. Loss of high skilled high paying jobs, loss of cheap electricity, which lead to loss of heavy industry and we loop back to the start.
My old man was a card carrying member of the National Party (he'd roll over in his grave if he knew how many times I'd voted Labour) and he was also a dairy farmer over 40 years ago in the Manuwatu. When he brought his last dairy farm, he discovered that effluent and waste milk from the cowshed was dumped straight into a stream that passed through the property.
When he found that out, he improved the effluent situation by separating the "solid" waste from the "liquid". The solid went into an expanded "septic" system that was then used to cut down the amount of fertiliser used on the farm while the liquid was water down and used for irrigation. Waste milk storage tanks was increased.
He then looked at the state of the stream and improved the planting around it, provided better fencing and surface and inground drainage to stop seepage into the stream. As other farmers in the area noticed the improvement of the stream, they started doing similar things and slowly the health of the stream improved.
It's interesting how there are two schools of thought around the climate....
1. that the only way to improve it is to almost stop everything while
2. others believe that technological advancements will save things.
TBH, I'm somewhere in the middle..... I think we should try now to not cause any more damage while waiting for technology to catch up.
That could be tricky with their unique history.
Which wealthy 1% er's people have been grandstanding & virtue signalling in New Zealand exactly?
The biggest issues for me is the thought given to the transition periods, the costs, the consequences on other areas of any policy made and whether its actually going to achieve any net gain or if its just a nice headline.
I mean having to import inferior coal from Indonesia is a perfect example
the ones that have been saying they should be contributing more.
We have one of the technologies now, except Greens and so called "Environmentalists" have been fighting it for 60 years.
MrFrankWhite, what do you think should be the way ahead? Small fission or fusion reactors? Is Australia looking at either?
