Posts by Russell Brown
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
... and an incoherent rant. "Their"/They're", "That was a rant". Back to the Scotch to calm down, methinks.
At 10am on a weekday? Ah, the wild life of academe ...
-
Such passion such angst cannot be explained away by a public policy debate over the catastrophe of time: climate change. No no it’s a deeper darker anger.
No, Chris, it's what people are thinking. Act has long been a refuge of the odd and slightly damaged
Stump up with the link. Whilst I have no first hand knowledge of the negotiations between National and ACT this claim does not seem to be very plausible on the face of it.
Ah. And this is where, again, we reach the point where it is revealed that you don't actually know what you're talking about ...
Let's just say I have a source.
3. The science behind climate change
Mr Brown actually concedes my point. Given all the weakness of politicians and select committees, that is the system we have. Ultimately, the extent of any survey of the science and any expert evidence will be up to the Select Committee which will be proportionally representative of Parliament. They might conclude that whatever the technical debate about climate change, it’s prudent to do something.But that conclusion was reached some time ago. It's only the Monster Raving Looney Party that wants to do it all over again.
4. Public policy movements in response to climate change
Again Mr Brown should calm himself. Labour here and policy changes abroad have probably moved NZ into “do something” mode. As I have intimated it may be better to be a slow adopter of a cap and trade system until these are fully functional in North America and Europe.Others here have noted evidence very much to the contrary -- that being a late adopter confers no advantage, and indeed, implies greater costs. But don't let that stop you.
Honestly, Chris, you'd do a lot better to simply engage in debate rather than waltzing in like a pompous know-it-all -- because when, inevitably, it transpires that you don'r know it all, you look quite silly.
-
How are you feeling, Russell? If I were you, I would read the latest Metro and feel considerably better. You've made it to the upper echelons of the Police Force without even trying.
Ah yes, that was quite droll, wasn't it? Nice to have one's work appreciated.
The week's been a washout workwise -- was supposed to be pulling together my Media7 clips show, but I just haven't been up to anything like a full day's work this week.
But I'll be fit enough to make lunch for the assembled PA bloggers -- half of whom haven't met the other half -- tomorrow. It wasn't looking that way a couple of days ago, and that was making me very glum.
-
What'll it be, customers? Last year, Public Address readers voted "Te Qaeda" as the Word of the Year 2007, followed by "sub-prime" and "it's business time". As ever, you're invited to nominate and debate words for 08 here, in advance of a final online vote. And along the way, there'll be two cases of wine from Vavasour going to the cleverest amongst you.
-
OK, I should partially retract that. It's an entirely honourable school of thought that the Prime Minister of New Zealand should never, ever express any disquiet about any policy that potentially could have a catastrophic impact on a major industry in New Zealand.
I can't quite see what all the fuss is about. In context, his description of the proposal as "not necessarily rational" seems perfectly alright. Steve Pierson was going nuts about it, but I hardly think Gordon Brown will have been upset.
-
Ah Mr Brown reminds me of one of those worn out greyhounds salivating like pavlov’s dog at the ACT rabbit. Of course the rise is far too passionate far too irrational to be merely about policy. Its personal.
Chris, the last time you pranced in here calling me a fool, you proved to have no idea what you were on about. As I recall, I suggested you could work on being a little less patronising. I think you need to practice a bit harder.
The reason I quoted a range of written opinions about Act's cranky behaviour at the top of the post was to emphasise quite how widespread the alarm is.
1. Where is the pork
No Right Turn has poor understanding of the confidence and supply agreement between National and ACT ...Translation: "it's not pork when we do it ... "
2. ACT offered two Cabinet seats according Mr Brown
I think this would come as a surprise to both National and ACT. Clearly Mr Brown knows something they don’t.Or perhaps certain Act officials should keep their mouths shut. Mind you, given the nature of the party he could well have been barking mad. so perhaps I should provisionally grant you that one.
3. Assessing Climate Change Science is too hard for pols.
This is an argument from expertise. Of course the left don’t run it regarding health say because after all cradle to grave healthcare is so easy; politicians have all the information necessary about my health needs and yours and the human body to make rationing decisions. Fortunately science isn’t faith and politicians aren’t any smarter or more stupid than the rest of us. It’s the system we have.We don't expect democratic representatives to know everything. We expect them to seek expert counsel on our behalf. They did that. Our expert agencies, like those throughout the developed world, advised that there was a very serious problem. The politician who hears such expert technical counsel and still insists on trotting out stuff he's read off the internet (see Hide's wacko speech, linked above) is not to be trusted.
And your analogy is daft. People in every democracy vote to some extent for the health system they want. They don't vote for the climate they want.
4. Carbon Tax or Cap and Trade.
The upshot is that a tax might be more efficient until a deep liquid market emerges. Most economists (Jeffrey Sachs is one of the many) now agree that a carbon tax might be better first off ..The "most economists" meme is the latest talking point amongst the kind of people who two years ago were screaming about the damage a carbon tax would do, isn't it? I've seen the claim made repeatedly on right-wing websites, but I've never seen it quantified.
But at least you're making an actual argument. Act's unilateral terms of reference for the review and Hide's speech are just kind of blurts. I think that still leaves you in the position of polishing your leader's turd.
-
I can't quit make it out but was Paula Oliver responsible for the two part hagiography of John Key that appeared earlier in the year in the Herald?
Partly, yes. She also spent quite a bit of time on the campaign trail with National.
But I'm not sure if it's worth sniffing around for specific pieces that you can associate with her change of role. I just think in general it's sad when longtime journalists cross over.
-
Tim Watkin's comment under a good post by David Lewis on this topic over at Pundit:
It's interesting to note the various stands National has taken on these issues. John Key told a National party regional conference in Whangarei last year:
We won't lurch from one climate policy to the next like Labour has – we'll be predictable and consistent.
In that same speech Key said "We will introduce a comprehensive 'cap and trade' emission permit system to manage greenhouse gas emissions. This system will encourage cost-effective emission reduction across the economy". Now he wants a select committee to re-think and even reconsider a carbon tax.
But his deputy Bill English said in 2003 that he would repeal any carbon or fart tax and Peter Dunne, his Revenue minister stupidly said such a tax would be "stupid".
Excuse me a second, I'm just waiting for the lurching to stop...
Ouch.
-
There are advantages to Australia acting early if emission pricing expands gradually across the world: economies that defer action face higher long-term costs, as global investment is redirected to early movers.
Rod Oram has been making precisely this point for a while now. There is nothing to be gained by being a laggard. Quite the reverse.
-
Agree, LAX is essentially an interrogation chamber with aircraft runways. Was SFO any better?
Much -- getting searched there was positively pleasant. I went via LAX to San Francisco because the person I was travelling with had Qantas air points, but next time I go back to California, it's absolutely direct to SFO on Air NZ.
Funny thing is, LAX was vile long before the current panic. My first experience of it was being herded into a dirty transit "lounge" with no shops or anything en route back from London with a four-month old baby. I was flabbergasted by that.
And I nearly kissed Paul Johnston from Renaissance when he blagged me into the Air NZ lounge at LAX during our stopover on the way back from Macworld NY in 1998. It was like a beautiful garden of loveliness, with hot showers and cold sauvignon blanc.
But it doesn't have to be that way. Look at Changi airport, which is run by a government which has an intense focus on security -- but still manages to treat travellers like humans. Humans, it should be noted, with nothing better to do than shop.
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 1750 1751 1752 1753 1754 … 2279 Older→ First