Labour and National fail environmental test - Vote for the Environment results

[Alan Liefting]

*
*


*Labour and National fail environmental test*

Environmentalists from two major New Zealand environmental groups
surveyed political party policies regarding New Zealand’s environment,
but the two biggest parties in Parliament failed the test.

“A Labour-led government may do more for the environment than a
National-led one, but, judging by their commitments, the main parties
will need the influence of the Maori Party and the Greens if they are to
make real progress.”

“We asked the political parties to commit to 25 policies that would
tackle climate change, clean up New Zealand’s rivers, save our oceans,
protect natural heritage and exercise environmental leadership. Both
major parties refused to make clear commitments.”

“We were surprised by how poorly both the two major parties scored.
Neither of them showed the kind of commitment needed to keep New Zealand
clean and green.”

Each of the eight main Parliamentary political parties were asked to
confirm commit to the 25 environmental policies with a yes or no and
were given space to clarify their answers. Of the seven political
parties that responded, only National and Labour refused to answer “ye’
or “no.”

“National scored abysmally. They refused to sign up to any of the
policies, but they picked up 27% for making some small steps in the
right direction. Worryingly, along with United Future, they had the
worst response of any party on responding to climate change (4/20) and
had the weakest approach of any party to cleaning up New Zealand’s
freshwater (2/20). ACT refused to even respond.

“Labour also refused to commit fully to any of the policies, but their
comments on the survey showed they are willing to do more than National
for the environment. They scored 45% overall. Their strongest
commitments were in saving our oceans (12/20) and saving New Zealand’s
natural heritage (12/20). Labour made few commitments to clean up New
Zealand’s freshwater (5/20) or to show environmental leadership (5/20)”

“United Future gained 53%, scoring well on cleaning up New Zealand’s
freshwater, but did very badly on tackling climate change (4/20) and
protecting New Zealand’s natural heritage (3/20).”

“Jim Anderton’s Progressives scored 60%. Their strongest commitments
were on saving the oceans (14/20), protecting New Zealand’s natural
heritage (17/20) and environmental leadership (14/20) ”

“New Zealand First and the Maori Party scored far better than expected
given their voting record in Parliament, where both parties have opposed
environmental legislation. New Zealand First gained 76% and the Maori
Party gained 87%. Both parties scored well on environmental leadership
and the Maori Party scored the best of any party on cleaning up New
Zealand’s water ways.”

“The Greens scored the best of any political party and were the only
party to score 20/20 for tackling climate change.


* Note to editors*

The overall results of our survey was:

Information on the survey can be downloaded at:
http://www.environmentvote.org.nz/party-ratings.asp

The voting record of political parties over the last 3 years can read
here at:

http://www.environmentvote.org.nz/events.asp

For information on the issues and policies that we used in our survey read:

http://www.environmentvote.org.nz/key-issues.asp

Vote for the Environment is supported by Greenpeace and ECO. It is
registered as a third party under the Electoral Finance Act 2007.

The response from each party that did respond can also be found on the
www.environmentvote.org.nz <http://www.environmentvote.org.nz> website
--
Alan Liefting
Green Party Candidate for Waimakariri

107 Warrington Street
St Albans
Christchurch 8013

Telephone: [phone] [phone]
Skype: alan_liefting

Some things are bigger than politics
http://www.greens.org.nz

[BrentC]

On Mon, 03 Nov 2008 10:21:45 +1300, Alan Liefting

Post by Alan Liefting
*
*
*Labour and National fail environmental test*
Environmentalists from two major New Zealand environmental groups
surveyed political party policies regarding New Zealand’s environment,
but the two biggest parties in Parliament failed the test.
“A Labour-led government may do more for the environment than a
National-led one, but, judging by their commitments, the main parties
will need the influence of the Maori Party and the Greens if they are to
make real progress.”
“We asked the political parties to commit to 25 policies that would
tackle climate change, clean up New Zealand’s rivers, save our oceans,
protect natural heritage and exercise environmental leadership. Both
major parties refused to make clear commitments.”
“We were surprised by how poorly both the two major parties scored.
Neither of them showed the kind of commitment needed to keep New Zealand
clean and green.”

where does the money come from?

[Adam]

Post by BrentC
where does the money come from?

Thanks, Brent - that's rather a crucial notion.

It has to do with a lack of vocabulary we have in NZ
in discussing our politics. We're simply not all on
the same page in that discussion. Growth and sustainability
are two words, not opposites or mutually exclusive, but
difficult to use together. The right use one, and the left
use the other.

For example, the notion of 'growth' is generally accepted
as meaning economic growth. When 'growth' is applied to
countries around the world, its clearly an un-sustainable
proposition as it implies an exponential use and abuse of
the countries' or world's resources.

In maths or economic terms, applying numerically-quantified
growth to non-monetary features of countries around the world
is a serious business. Similarly, deriving a quantification for
sustainability or its opposite is probably no trivial matter.

In philosophic terms, this area is right within the ball-park
that Bertrand Russell spent much time with, the idea of what
entities or inferred-entities may be (from individual and or
group perspectives), and whether these fall in to which groups
or which groups of groups (so as stats can be derived, or usages
can be measured). His influence on contemporary maths and stats
cannot be underestimated.

So the notion of 'sustainable' could be generally accepted as
meaning environmentally sustainable, but locally ?, world-wide ?,
in the West ?, oil-rich East ?, third-world ?. For example
the idea of a star's life or sustainability, such as that of
our Sun, is well understood. But the concept of an ocean's
life, like that of our Ocean - is a more problematic concept.

Can we as humans kill or 'render unsustainable' a star, an
ocean, a forest, river or a local vegetable patch ? There's
obviously a sliding scale here, with human needs and perspectives
each involved somehow.

'Universal income' may mean one thing these days, but
can alternatively be seen as pure Light - from the Sun,
being the only net income of real energy the world has at
its disposal. If 'sustainable growth' is required, and even
this is unclear to many, then the nature of resources (or the
resources of nature), and the accounting of energy use, seem
a reasonable place to start discussion with an appropriate
vocabulary of words and concepts.


To cut to the chase, the NZ Green Party is taking a stab at
this, but is poorly resourced and almost a shadow of its
Australian counter-part under Bob Brown. But they're in
there swinging with something of a vocabulary, concept-base
and argument.

The other major parties, in their stampede to capture the
center-ground vote, are simply short-term careerists with
little or nothing wise or relevant to contribute in argument
or discussion.

Can't answer your original question "where does the money
come from". Maybe someone else can.

[BrentC]

Post by Adam

Post by BrentC
where does the money come from?

Thanks, Brent - that's rather a crucial notion.
It has to do with a lack of vocabulary we have in NZ
in discussing our politics. We're simply not all on
the same page in that discussion. Growth and sustainability
are two words, not opposites or mutually exclusive, but
difficult to use together. The right use one, and the left
use the other.
For example, the notion of 'growth' is generally accepted
as meaning economic growth. When 'growth' is applied to
countries around the world, its clearly an un-sustainable
proposition as it implies an exponential use and abuse of
the countries' or world's resources.
In maths or economic terms, applying numerically-quantified
growth to non-monetary features of countries around the world
is a serious business. Similarly, deriving a quantification for
sustainability or its opposite is probably no trivial matter.
In philosophic terms, this area is right within the ball-park
that Bertrand Russell spent much time with, the idea of what
entities or inferred-entities may be (from individual and or
group perspectives), and whether these fall in to which groups
or which groups of groups (so as stats can be derived, or usages
can be measured). His influence on contemporary maths and stats
cannot be underestimated.
So the notion of 'sustainable' could be generally accepted as
meaning environmentally sustainable, but locally ?, world-wide ?,
in the West ?, oil-rich East ?, third-world ?. For example
the idea of a star's life or sustainability, such as that of
our Sun, is well understood. But the concept of an ocean's
life, like that of our Ocean - is a more problematic concept.
Can we as humans kill or 'render unsustainable' a star, an
ocean, a forest, river or a local vegetable patch ? There's
obviously a sliding scale here, with human needs and perspectives
each involved somehow.
'Universal income' may mean one thing these days, but
can alternatively be seen as pure Light - from the Sun,
being the only net income of real energy the world has at
its disposal. If 'sustainable growth' is required, and even
this is unclear to many, then the nature of resources (or the
resources of nature), and the accounting of energy use, seem
a reasonable place to start discussion with an appropriate
vocabulary of words and concepts.
To cut to the chase, the NZ Green Party is taking a stab at
this, but is poorly resourced and almost a shadow of its
Australian counter-part under Bob Brown. But they're in
there swinging with something of a vocabulary, concept-base
and argument.
The other major parties, in their stampede to capture the
center-ground vote, are simply short-term careerists with
little or nothing wise or relevant to contribute in argument
or discussion.
Can't answer your original question "where does the money
come from". Maybe someone else can.

Thanks for the verbiage Adam - however without some token of exchange
no one eats unless we drastically re-duce the worlds population and
return to a medieval existence.

So - as you haven't or can't answer where does the money come from - I
can logically assume that The Green Party stands for genocide?

[Adam]

Post by BrentC
Thanks for the verbiage Adam - however without some token of exchange
no one eats unless we drastically re-duce the worlds population and
return to a medieval existence.
So - as you haven't or can't answer where does the money come from - I
can logically assume that The Green Party stands for genocide?

"Stands for" might be a bit much, but yes I agree its a worrying
picture.

Related: National Radio mentioned that they're already using
non-monetary 'exchanges' over there in Golden Bay, Takaka I
think it was, for goods and labour.

No - the rich will get richer and still eat well, and the
poor poorer and die. And my point, the dialog during this
masks any attempt at realistic overview.