Posts by Angus Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Dear Keith
(For effect please be imaging following text to be becoming progressively bolder.)
We should not be involved in emission trading.
These are emission targets for a Kyoto type country-by-country emission policy. Kyoto based emissions caps have a few minor issues which bear thinking about.
The most important of which (from my perpective as an enviromentalist) is that they do not work. Ever.* They do not reduce global carbon emissions, quite the opposite.
Second most important problem is that the idea of global Kyoto based emission trading caps are dead in the water, absolutely positively never going to be adopted by the Chinese or Indians or any developing world nation with a backbone. If we've waited this long before adoption, why adopt now when they are mere months from sinking below the surface never to be seen again?
Third most important problem (and this the reason the Chinese & Indians are not buying the BS) is that Kyoto agreements are manifestly exploitative of the third world. They are a tax on industrial growth at a time when the largest economies of the third world are raising almost 1 billion people out of poverty through industrialisation. They are a tax on industrialisation that subsidises reducing industrial capacity at a time when the first world nations(Europe/USA) supporting the measure are (cue fucking amazing surprise) reducing industrial capacity. These same first world pricks do presume to be running a "market" based in the financial centres of Europe and soon to be USA which will clip the ticket of every carbon trade - further penalising the 3rd world. And the best part is that the West recognises this problem and promises to remedy the unfairness by (get this) providing "aid" - the same aid that has been so successful in fulfilling the millenial goals of debt reuction (not), combating maliria (not), assisting with HIV harm reduction (not) and having broken hundreds of other similar aid promises down the line - Third World countries have a deep understanding of the worth of First World aid promises (paper + ink + free buffet at signing ceremony).
We. Should. Not. Make. Any. Commitment. To. An. Emission. Cap. Ever.
* Sweden has maybe contributed to reduced global carbon emissions by operating a carbon tax which is an effective system for reducing greenhouse emissions (the fact that they also Kyoto style cap'n'trade is detrimental to their success rate). France maybe about to adopt similar taxation.
-
Shaun called it "the best kind of brain tumour to have", which I’m pretty sure means it gives me super-powers.
Hopefully these powers will include the abilitiy to sustain repeated blows to the right side of your head.
If not, be extra careful.
-
Peter Ashby,
My things that must be done list for this coming summer now includes - batch up some blackcurrant liquer.
-
No, I said its regressive. But that policy affects only a small proportion of overall Danish immigration, and is not any sort of check on the ability of citizens of other Schengen countries to move and work there.
Found something interesting, up until May 2009 Denmark required the citizens of the new member states to apply for a work permit before entry. So basically until now Denmark has been restricting immigration to citzens of the richest, most comprehensively welfare assisted countries in existance.
All data until this point in time is based partly upon those restrictions and the aforementioned non-EU entry restrictions (regressive). Give it two years and we will be able to see if the Danish model is robust enough to take the wave of unemployed Romanian, Slovakian, Czech, Pole, Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian, Bulgarian and Hungarian poor who (lacking the welfare afforded the poor in Western & Scandinavian Europe) are migrating.
Wait two years and see. Until then I am going to keep on saying that the Danish low unemployment "success" with 80% welfare payments, high taxes and liberal hire/fire laws could just be the cherry topping and chocolate sprinkles on a big bowl of stinking xenophobic, conservative immigration policy. I figure you will continue to pick those cherries and not even worry about the after taste.
-
In other words, you're still talking bullshit.
Seriously, you think the Danish People Party have not produced a regressive immigration policy? They have made what NZFirst could only dream of.
The EU recently ruled against their immigration laws and the commissioner is trying to get them ammended, but you say they're fine. The UNHCR ranks them 27th of 28 in Europe for integration of foreigners, but you say the UNHCR is obviously spreading BS.
The Migration Policy Institute sums it up perfectly: "Both the 24-year rule and reduced welfare benefits have been roundly criticized by the UN, the EU, and the Council of Europe for being discriminatory and making life more difficult for people who are already in a marginalized and vulnerable social position."
-
And they are putting motors on America's Cup boats.
-
I call bullshit.
Denmark is part of the Schengen Agreement. Anyone in the Schengen Area
The Danes are unique amoung the Schengen Area, in that they can accept or decline to adopt measures at their own behest. (Think of it this way, Denmark supports the Schengen Agreement like Peter Garrett opposes nuclear energy.)
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has been critical of their immigration law.
It ain't BS.
-
Denmark has some of the highest unemployment benefits in the world, but it also liberal hiring policies. As a result, it has one of the highest productivity levels in the world, while maintaining very low unemployment.
Denmark also has regressive immigration law which assists a low unemployment rate by restricting the flow of new entrants to the job market.
-
Of course, Angus, you've no contempt for the politicians who've let provocation stay on the books?
Craig,
Wasn't me, but anyways I like the provocation defence. If a killer is provoked to kill they need to be granted the provocation defence. The reputations of lawyers like Ablett-Kerr notwithstanding, there is no good reason to remove a right to this defence
-
It was a little more surprising (albeit for only a moment) to hear he has asked Guinness World Records to note the accomplishment.
Gross out momemt on first scanning that - what is he record for number of stab wounds incurred by a murder victim?