Green politics

Alista made this post in the thread on a Green party fundraiser I’m organising. I thought I’d move discussion to a different thread, so as to keep the original thread on topic.

[quote=“Alista”]You seem to forget I have seen some of the Greens environmental policy.

As theGreen party seems to live in fantasy world with no connection to emperical evidence, I would say the Green party is a very successful fantasy Live Role Play anyway.[/quote]

I’m intrigued. Which bits are fantasy ? That we believe in sustainability ? That we want to stop species from going extinct ? That we recognise that oil is a finite resource ? That we want to combat climate change ?

Before anyone comments on this I’d like to ask everyone to think carefully about any response they wish to post.

Politics are a heavy and sensitive issue and while we’re all friends here, I can forsee a huge explosion of conflicting views that will not only incur the wrath of the forum gods, but also impact on the dynamics of our community as a whole.

That being said, I’m largely uneducated in this forum having paid nowhere near enough attention to any political party, but I might dare suggest that persuading Australia to sign the Kyoto Protocol is a little outdated :stuck_out_tongue:

Now I’m going for a read so I can join in the fun

There’s certainly a few policies to work through, aren’t there ? :wink:

Unlike other parties, our policies are developed by our members. Any member is welcome to join in the initial development, or to provide feedback on proposed policies.

Furthermore, our MPs are bound by the ratified policies*. This means that when you Party Vote Green, you know what the MPs will support.

Same goes for the list - all our members vote on the order of the list.

  • There is an opt-out clause for policies you can’t support due to your personal beliefs, but these must be stated up front when you put yourself forward as a candidate.

I actually don’t feel there is any need to be negative like that in a simple thread asking for volontiers its not like he is press ganging people or anything, tbh who cares whats behind the event as long as it promotes good honest fun (larping) and doesn’t activly Harm innocents.

-free speach doesnt give people the right to be rude.

-Xcerus-

I think he was just having a cheap dig based on his opinions, which may or may not be based on ignorance. I don’t know why but it certainly isn’t constructive.

He’s entitled to do it but we don’t have to like it. :stuck_out_tongue:

Trust me, Alistas comments were very mild compared to a lot of the stick I get for being involved with the Greens.

And while he may have come across as abrasive, I could see the humour. If being a Green automatically made you into a larper, we’d have large-scale fests every month ! :smiley:

The simple fact is that the Greens have a lot of policy, and if you look hard enough, I’m sure you’ll find something that you don’t agree with.

Then again, we’re not perfect and Alista might have a valid point about our environmental policies. I’d like to know what it is.

Maybe you should make LARP part of your party policy! I’ll join then. Not for any other reason though. The LARP party…

Nup, I’m good with it.

Play on.

I agree Ayesha.

OK, the Greens don’t have a specific policy on larping per se, but we do have an Arts & Culture policy

NB: it will be updated during the campaign, but this quote from the 2005 policy should give an idea of our position:

So, do our larps inspire, challenge, invigorate ? I’d say so. As it happens, Metiria (the larping MP) is the spokesperson on this policy area, which is apt.

Are you campaigning for the Green Party? I’m curious about why discussing politics is allowed on diatribe when the thread on Christianity was locked; is it OK to discuss politics but not religion? I’m not bitching here, just amazingly bewildered :confused:

In as far as discussing the Greens during an election campaign, and promoting their policies, then yes I am. As I mentioned in the other thread, I’m #16 on the list, and standing for Tamaki Makaurau.

If you refer to the thread where Dylan (Aabbccooxx or whatever his handle is) was getting offended, the moderator (Anna) decided to defuse the situation by locking the thread. My take is that it wasn’t a lock on all discussion of Christianity, but a decision to defuse that particular discussion.

Politics, OTOH, is more naturally suited to robust discussion. It is handy that you posted here so we can continue discussion from the recent post you made on the thread discussing support for the fundraising Kids Skirmish. I would like to keep that thread relatively on topic by diverting political discussion to this thread where appropriate (it’s totally OK to make a political post to that thread, but I’ll respond on this thread to move discussion here).

Jenna, you make some good points:

No, but they I’d say they are the only party who knows what larp is ! If larp is important to you, and you are deciding who to vote for then perhaps you might decided that a party with an actively larping MP is a Good Thing ?

That’s got legs, it has. :wink:

Actually, it was a temp in her office who responded to an email, and not Sue herself. It’s quite unfortunate that Sue is held responsible for something she did not do.

We got a puppy yesterday. Under the old law, if I hit my puppy with a stick then I could be arrested, but if I hit my kids with a stick it would be “reasonable force”. Violence is a major problem in our society, and laws that enshrine the right to visit violence on our most vulnerable (i.e. children) are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I think the current law is working. The police have discretion in terms of what they consider to be “transitory and trifling” (in which case they do not need to prosecute).

Pokies quite simply transfer wealth from the poor to the needy. Pokie money spent in South Auckland ends up supporting that most need industry - horse racing - in Christchurch. It’s a public rort writ large, by organisations who often have beneficial interests in where the proceeds are spent.

Pokie machines are specifically designed to addict people - addicts have measurable dopamine hits each time they press the Go button. And this causes massive social damage. I’ve seen it happen in my own whanau.

GE food is universally derided - there is no GE market for us to “catch up” with. Instead, we need to be riding the organic wave, where extra profits accrue to food that is not only better for you, but better for the environment too. The Greens aren’t totally anti-GE: “Keep it in the lab” is out motto. Did you know that the multinationals that want to bring GE to NZ do NOT want to take out insurance for any damages it causes ? They’d rather this particular risk is borne by all the taxpayers. Funny that, for a risk-free industry…

As for nuclear power, it is simply too expensive and too risky to house in NZ. You need to double your nuclear capacity so you can turn off one generator for maintenance = twice the cost. Then there’s the risk of earthquake. And what will we do with the waste ?

As it happens, Aotearoa is the Saudi Arabia of wind ! We have stacks of wind generation opportunities, and we need to get wind generation increased to about 20% of our energy production mix.

Sure, choosing who to vote for is a complex decision. The fact that the Greens have an active, larping MP is relevant to the diatribe community. I’m informing the community, and they can decide for themselves.

If you refer to the thread where Dylan (Aabbccooxx or whatever his handle is) was getting offended, the moderator (Anna) decided to defuse the situation by locking the thread. My take is that it wasn’t a lock on all discussion of Christianity, but a decision to defuse that particular discussion.[/quote]

Piping up to say that Mike indeed has the correct take on that instance - I didn’t say religion was banned, I locked that particular topic because it was heading in a very voltalie direction, and it was not promoting healthy debate, it was rather heading towards hurt feelings.

I’ve just remembered that in 2007, National MP Jackie Dean took the hoax so seriously that she actually wrote to the Associate Minister of Health asking if the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs was considering banning this drug.

A pdf of the letter is here.

Priceless.

A small but non-zero example of policy based on lack of evidence is the emissions bill that was recently passed with the Green party support. It is based on several unproven assumptions.

  1. That humans have caused the bulk of carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere. This assumption has yet to be proven. There has been an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide in recent years, but we are not sure of its immediate causes. While it seems possible that humans have caused some of this increase, even the largest estimates only account for approximately 1/3 of the total increase in carbon dioxide. The absolute latest research seems to indicate that while human carbon dioxide production is increasing, the total world atmospheric carbon dioxide may have started to decrease.

  2. That humans have caused an increase in the average surface temperature of the planet. To date people have spennt US$50,000,000,000 trying to show that humans are responsible for the recent temperature rise. For that money they have produced no emperical evidence that humans have caused recent temperature changes. I have heard one of the leaders of the Green party say that just about all scientists agree in anthropogenic warming. This is a blatently untrue statement. The only reason to use such a statement is when people know there is no emperical proof that humans have caused global warming.

If anyone has any emperical evidence of anthropogenic global warming, please contact me and either send me the journal reference or allow me to be the co-author. (Models don’t count, it must be real evidence.)

3.) That a warming climate is a bad thing. The Earth is the coldest it has been in about 300,000,000 years. We are in an inter-glacial which is not the normal state of affairs. In the phraneozoic period the average temperture of the Earth has been on average about 5 degrees warmer than it is right now. For some reason we have decided that 1977 is the temperature that the Earth should stay even though geological evidence shows that in the scheme of things that this is probably a lower than average temperature. (We also seem to have chosen a totally arbitrary and very low amount of carbon dioxide as being the norm.)

These would appear to be three simple but fundamental flaws to the whole Kyoto agreement and emmissions trading scheme.

If a party is going to spend my tax dollars on a scheme such as the emissions bill, it would be nice if there were any actual real emperical evidence.

Is a LARP forum really the place for a political discussion? I mean, other than actual game-related politics.

If humans are not responsible for any form of global warming including damage to the ozone layer then how come we arn’t using cfc’s anymore?

oh wait…

GE food: Irrelevant - new zealand has one of the largest land mass to population %ges in the world - Sort it out - More farms = more food = lower prices.

Nuclear power: Yea great idea in a country basically made of volcanoes… any one for green skin? (Yea i know don’t tell me its not supposed to be serious)

Wind turbines, Solar panels, hydro and tidal electric stations. Even if we arn’t causing CO2 to go up does it hurt to become 100% reknewable when we only have 50 years (ish) worth of fossil fuels left? Seriously does it actually matter that much to you that we should use every last drop and THEN figure out how to power everything?

Note: I am not green, I like to catch big sea fish, I like to hunt animals and I love to eat meat. I have inrests in the lumber industry so its not like I want to save the forests. I just think that some of the points raised are a little foolish considering the country size to population ratio.

Genetic engineering of food has been going on since the beginning of agriculture. Through selective breeding we have been slowly but surely eliminating crop strains that didn’t produce good yields or were of poor quality. More recently the technology to directly manipulate the genes of plants has been developed. It’s simply a matter of speeding up what originally takes a really long time and being able to directly observe the results. With GE scientists have the chance to develop crops which produce higher yields, are higher quality and therefore taste better, are more resistant to pests and disease and are less costly to grow. These are all very good things. The world’s population is growing quickly and without food science food will keep getting scarcer.

I’m not usually a “bring Japan into very argument” kind of guy, but Japan is earthquake-prone and has it’s fair of volcanoes. They are also the third highest nuclear power in the world. Nuclear energy is safe. Chernobyl is the one example of a major power station disaster, and that was due to negligent construction. The Three Mile Island island accident released an unknown amount of radiation with no recorded casualties and Japan’s recent earthquake released coolant water containing about the same amount of radioactivity as your average house. There’s no reason to be afraid of the concept of a nuclear power plant. As for waste, build a storage bunker and bury it.

As for climate change, I’m not convinced. And even if humans are doing whatever the hell Al Gore’s talking about these days we don’t know if it’s too late or not. Climate change is natural process, the existance of Ice Ages and that really warm period with dinosaurs and shit that I never remember the proper name for proves that well enough. Whatever industrialisation’s effect has been, the question should be “Will humanity survive the coming of a new Warm Age/Ice Age?” The answer to that is “Yes.”

I am, however, all for taking measures to decrease pollution. Everyone will agree with that, but is passing off these huge costs to the consumer and sacrificing our quality of life really the answer to this? Especially when it’s something we’re not quite sure about?

Oh, and by the way, keep up your hunting, fishing and forestry. There’s plenty of fish (and if there isn’t I don’t care), game animals are an introduced pest in New Zealand so it’s good for the environment to kill them, and forestry is trees. People don’t just go around cutting whatever grows down, they farm trees in much the same way we farm wheat or salmon. If there’s more demand for timber, the tree farms will grow and there will be more trees. The magic of economics.

the electricity issue is quite an odd thing, even though re-newable sources don’t produce polution once started they can cause alot of havoc on the environment around, it’s a self contradicting thing.

hydro power - you have to flood the surrounding area in order to give the dam enough water.

wind power - best idea, by my reckonings, but people complain that its an eyesore on the land and is way to expensive to have the ones that go in/on the water.

solar power - same issue with wind but there are alot of nasty chemicals used to produce theseand they cost an arm and a leg to get.

Energy and power is something of a contention point in politics all over the western world.

No one has yet been able to come up with a completely safe and re-newable energy source, despite billions of dollars being put towards the research.

Personally I do not want nuclear power in NZ. Even though, Nuclear power is the best looking option on paper. Regardless of its low cost, I think even the minimal risk of a meltdown is too much and I think the issue of safe waste disposal is a big one.

We cant just dump nuclear waste underground in a bunker and hope for the best.

I’m not a scientist, so I’m going to rely on those who are in my responses. Mainly, the New Scientist articles that debunk climate change myths

There are different types of carbon, and these can be measure in the growthrings of trees. Turns out that increases in carbon in the atmosphere can be traced back to fossil fuels, up until 1954 when atospheric nuclear testing wrecked the detection model.

So what would this empircal evidence look like ? Surely we would need our own Earth and time machine so we could conduct experiments and document the consequences sufficient to deliver emperical evidence ? Climate is complex; what kind of evidence would you need to conclude that
humans are responsible for the climate change we are currently seeing ?

Alternatively, perhaps there actually is an overwhelming consensus ?

Sure, planet Earth will still be here regardless of the climate. However, it’s not about the planet, it’s about the biosphere. And our biosphere is very fragile. While you may fret about your “tax dollars” being spent on the ETS, how about sparing a thought for those who would suffer most from the predicted effects of climate change ?

I quote George Monbiot:
“We now know, for example, that the Himalayan glaciers which feed the Ganges, the Bramaputra, the Mekong, the Yangtze and the other great Asian rivers are likely to disappear within 40 years.(15) If these rivers dry up during the irrigation season, then the rice production which currently feeds over one third of humanity collapses, and the world goes into net food deficit.”

Alista, if you are wrong then these people will face starvation on a level that is unprecendented. I am willing to be wrong on this, despite the cost to myself. Are you willing to be wrong, despite the incalculable cost to so many others ?

What would be nicer, considering that only ACT are climate change deniers (and therefore it is fair to conclude that the ETS (or something like it) is here to stay), would be for the actual polluters to actually pay, rather than us taxpayers. For example, the dairy industry gets an ETS holiday until 2013, despite being responsible for circa 50% of our emissions ! Guess who pays - taxpayers. Only the Greens want to see equity and fairness in the allocation of ETS costs.