Heh. Just after I throw out the line "Green's need to think globally" they wind up their Nelson Conference with Russel Norman's speech: "Green globalisation – engagement and self-reliance"
They recommend that mankind adopt energy efficient technology - so they can take credit when mankind does what it has always done - invent and adopt increasingly efficient technology.
They recommend we share social and natural resources fairly [so] people don’t have their oxygen turned off because they can’t pay the electricity bill. Are they so sure Folole Muliaga had collected all of the social welfare funds she was entitled to that could have enabled her to pay the electricity bill? Given that IRD issue crippling and often fatal financial penalties every day for paying a tax bill late, does nationalizing the grid guarantee customers will pay on time, and that a government department will not overstep the bounds of human decency? ACC any-one?
They ask Why is it that, a decade after the signing of the Kyoto climate protection treaty, our greenhouse emissions continue to climb? Good question. Here's a theory - Because solving the problem by creating new taxes that work like the share market, without the full support of America, and exemptions to major polluters such as China was a stupid idea?
Then they rant against capitalism in general and how Labour and National are to blame for balancing jobs (and standard of living) with the complex interaction required to survive in today's world. They are right to speak of a vision where all is good in the world, and we all live in harmony with nature, food on the table and happy and prosperous citizens. I'm just not convinced their actual policy will match the vision.
However, they would appear infinitely more foolish if Labour and National were actually spouting sensible policy. Luckily for the Greens, whilst the incumbent party is demonstrably useless (if not dangerous and destructive) it remains to be seen if National will be much better. Whilst we have so little choice, the Greens will continue to appear palatable for a significant proportion of the population.
They have managed to find themselves in the position where they can talk about their policy in general terms, and yet criticize Labour and National over their lack of detail. However, you know whatever belt tightening is suggested by National or Labour, will be nothing compared to the crash diet the Greens would put us on should they get their way. They'll either kill the excess weight (aka underclass) or burn too much muscle (aka "producers") and either way, the body will suffer. If you read their press releases, they are positive this is inevitable. The world is finite, it can only sustain so many people they say. Which is why it always seems to be that they are heading right towards a "Let's kill some off in a socially and environmentally responsible way". I'm obviously getting cynical in my old age.
Related Link: Speech: Cars illegal; ethanol, wind and solar power all we need; non-organic farming banned; no greedy rich people allowed, withdraw from WTO; and democracy for China
They recommend that mankind adopt energy efficient technology - so they can take credit when mankind does what it has always done - invent and adopt increasingly efficient technology.
They recommend we share social and natural resources fairly [so] people don’t have their oxygen turned off because they can’t pay the electricity bill. Are they so sure Folole Muliaga had collected all of the social welfare funds she was entitled to that could have enabled her to pay the electricity bill? Given that IRD issue crippling and often fatal financial penalties every day for paying a tax bill late, does nationalizing the grid guarantee customers will pay on time, and that a government department will not overstep the bounds of human decency? ACC any-one?
They ask Why is it that, a decade after the signing of the Kyoto climate protection treaty, our greenhouse emissions continue to climb? Good question. Here's a theory - Because solving the problem by creating new taxes that work like the share market, without the full support of America, and exemptions to major polluters such as China was a stupid idea?
Then they rant against capitalism in general and how Labour and National are to blame for balancing jobs (and standard of living) with the complex interaction required to survive in today's world. They are right to speak of a vision where all is good in the world, and we all live in harmony with nature, food on the table and happy and prosperous citizens. I'm just not convinced their actual policy will match the vision.
However, they would appear infinitely more foolish if Labour and National were actually spouting sensible policy. Luckily for the Greens, whilst the incumbent party is demonstrably useless (if not dangerous and destructive) it remains to be seen if National will be much better. Whilst we have so little choice, the Greens will continue to appear palatable for a significant proportion of the population.
They have managed to find themselves in the position where they can talk about their policy in general terms, and yet criticize Labour and National over their lack of detail. However, you know whatever belt tightening is suggested by National or Labour, will be nothing compared to the crash diet the Greens would put us on should they get their way. They'll either kill the excess weight (aka underclass) or burn too much muscle (aka "producers") and either way, the body will suffer. If you read their press releases, they are positive this is inevitable. The world is finite, it can only sustain so many people they say. Which is why it always seems to be that they are heading right towards a "Let's kill some off in a socially and environmentally responsible way". I'm obviously getting cynical in my old age.
Related Link: Speech: Cars illegal; ethanol, wind and solar power all we need; non-organic farming banned; no greedy rich people allowed, withdraw from WTO; and democracy for China