Island Life by David Slack

Billboards are serious revenue for an Agency, outside the TVNZ cartel. Plus who can evaluate noise vesus "propensity to act", the Client never can and the Research Company never wants to. Campaign success equals re-pitch the Account.

There is something in wanting to ban the noise of the Iwi?Kiwi campaign, but foolishly they know not what the real affect of the words really were. Methinks they (the words) killed Brash dead, because really, even if we are all self-interested devious bastards, we don't want to be seen as so.

The invoice first, the fire later.

Was Key the 8th Beatle (after Stu Sutcliffe, Pete Best & George Martin) by any chance?

If the book is reliable on this matter, it would seem that the quality of Ansell's creative output is a little inconsistent. Some of it sounded to lack the deft touch of the Iwi/Kiwi series.

The poetry, you mean? Dreadful.

someone do me a favour and post this link http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/issueguides_minwage_minwagefacts

on DPF's latest foray into economics.

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2006/12/minimum_wage_up_10.html

webmarshall is blocking it. which i think is possible basis for a very real conspiracy against the truth reaching kiwiblog...

Spooky, it's like their are two DPF's. The one you'd happily have a glass of wine with and the one you hope never gets near the levers of power.

If we want a land full of pine trees, should the government not be a little stronger on the carrot and not quite so heavy on the stick?

It's not a matter of "stick" - its a matter of making people pay the full cost of their activites. Cutting down trees without planting replacements imposes a cost on the planet, and (thanks to Kyoto) on the government. This is a classic case of an externality, and the classic solution is to make the person responsible pay for it.

I've finished reading the full document, and I'll do a proper post on it shortly. But the quick response is that the forest owners had better getused to paying the full cost of their activities, because they're going to be doing it one way or another.

Che - I'll take responsibility for many things, but not for webmarhsall or net nanny software which blocks my blog. Probably doesn't like my mention of Britney's Spears p***y :-)

And I did not say raising the minimum wage was a bad thing. In fact I said I reject those who regard increases as universally good ro universally bad and that they can have a negative impact on employment and inflation, but that it depends on how big an increase is and other factiors.

And to reassure merc I have far more interest in drinking good red wine than being on or near the levers of power. Eight years in Parliament was more than enough thank you.

It's not a matter of "stick" - its a matter of making people pay the full cost of their activites. Cutting down trees without planting replacements imposes a cost on the planet, and (thanks to Kyoto) on the government. This is a classic case of an externality, and the classic solution is to make the person responsible pay for it.

Okay, what about this: but for those existing plantations, the planet and Kyoto takes a bigger hit. What recognition do they get for the benefit they already contribute?

Given our latitude, perhaps this needs consideration.

David - given the environmental harm done by huge pine forest plantation (acidification, loss of native habitat, fertilizer use, erosion during harvesting) I think the owners have already had plenty recognition for their "benefit" from the rest of us.

In terms of CO2 sinks I am not sure trees are a great answer. Reduction of reliance on fossil fuels goes to the true heart of the matter. Trees do have other worthwhile benefits, particularly where mono-culture is discouraged.

In regard to Stever's link, if the research is correct then once again we are witnessing the knee-jerk political actioneering that has become typical when a "new" issue starts gaining media traction - and there is a populace to placate.

Ho hum...plus ca change...

Reduction of reliance on fossil fuels goes to the true heart of the matter.

Bravo Don,

Tis the simple things...

Okay, what about this: but for those existing plantations, the planet and Kyoto takes a bigger hit. What recognition do they get for the benefit they already contribute?

None. The trees exist, and the carbon is already stored, so there's nothing to incentivise except the deforestation side.

This isn't a policy to reward forest-owners for having trees. Neither is it a policy to subsidise clearcut forestry, which has no effect in carbon terms (any carbon stored is nominally released on cutting; net effect zero). It is a policy to internalise carbon costs, as calculated under the Kyoto framework, and therefore relative to the 1990 baseline.

Don: deforestation counts as emissions, remember, so reducing it does actually help. As for the idea of forest sinks, I agree, it is better to reduce emissions directly. But planting trees buys us time to do that.

i think don's comment is the kernel of my long-standing scepticism towards kyoto.

after a conversation with i/s i've come round and think it is an acceptable approach (considering i only understand it in 'educated layman's' terms), but remain dubious that any real effort to cut carbon emissions will present itself in the future.

and, regarding the story about temperate forests contributing to global warming? hardly surprised it if were true. the basis of my scepticism is the relative simplicity of kyoto, i.e. tree pretty, car bad.

Che: with our renewable energy resources and empty spaces waiting to be filled with tres (meaning biofuel plantations), we have the best chance inthe world to cut our emissions. The trick seems to be getting started,and convincing people that it can be done without having to return to the dark ages. The new New Zealand Energy Strategy is a big step forward on this front, but unless the government shows some spine and sets a solid target date for a 100% renewable or carbon neutral electricity system (with policy to match - emissions trading with a sinking cap will work perfectly), then its just so much hot air.

And that said, it will all be in vain if we allow forest owners to deforest with abandon, or farmers to just keep on growing cows. We're in the best situation with electricity, and the worst for agriculture (lots of it, and free range rather than kept in sheds, so we can't use the easy methods to control emissions). There don't seem to be any silver bullets on that front, but we may be able to find something through research. Otherwise, we are eventually going to have to bite the bullet and make farmers pay for their externalities too.

Policy wonking on Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change is now up here

i/s, as i say, i listened to and got what you're saying. and, fortunately, emissions policy is nothing i have to touch in my working life.

that said, i don't think that any likely combination of contemporary persons in thorndon will deliver anything like a sustainable emissions outcome. no will on the part of the electorate.

i personally know people who saw the al gore film, freaked, went home and started recycling. two months later, back to driving the 4x4. why? "it was too hard to be green".

I'm having trouble with the concept that cutting down a tree releases the stored carbon?

If you burn the wood, or let it rot and decompose sure, its released.

But surely the walls of my house and the furniture I sit on still have all the carbon inside them, unreleased, that was in the tree before it was cut down?

Maybe we should be growing more wood, and using it to make stuff while growing more, instead of making plastic stuff, to "suck up" more and more carbon?

(as you can see, I'm a complete newbie to this topic and probably need re-education?)

but, on the subject of dr. brash and conspiracies.

this from stuff:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/3905457a6160.html

brash:

Brash said he now believed he was being followed throughout the election campaign. "I'm not given to paranoia, but you are left with the uncomfortable feeling that there is some kind of hanky panky going on.

i suspect it was just ms. foreman trying to get in touch with him.

FletcherB: It's a Kyoto accounting convention. As you point it, its incorrect - the carbon usually takes a lot longer to get into the atmosphere - but there are problems of provability and traceability, and the negotiators of the Kyoto rulebook decided to ignore them and adopt a "better safe than sorry" approach.

Brash said he now believed he was being followed throughout the election campaign

Does this remind anyone else of the post Rivendell section of the Fellowship of the Ring? How about if I mentioned that certain people of my acquaintance refer to Nicky Hager as "Gollum"?

I'm certain Brash was followed throughout the campaign....

Theres those people with the cameras and microphones for a start.... and then the ones with little note-pads writing down everything he said...

Andthen they told the public about it on TV/radio/newspapers!

Its a conspiracy, I tell you!

Brash said he now believed he was being followed throughout the election campaign. "I'm not given to paranoia, but you are left with the uncomfortable feeling that there is some kind of hanky panky going on.

I think the "hanky panky" as Dr Brash so endearingly puts it was between him and the "other" woman.

Today I watched Ricky Gervais - Animals on DVD, for some reason at the beginning when the lions were mating and he was doing his French voice over I got an image of Don and Di in my head that I found impossible to shift. I still feel very, very disturbed.

I am going for a lie down.