What Now Politically ?

By Vicki B

4 comments

Posted on Nov. 28, 2011. Listed in:

With the dust barely settled, what can we look forward to politically on the environmental front?

The Greens, on the back of a strategic repositioning, excellent campaigning, and a collapse of the Labour vote, did very well indeed on Saturday night. 

Their 13 (and even potentially 14 ) member caucus looks good.
The Memorandum of Understanding that they come to with National will be the key to any environmental improvements. Even though the Maori electorates were major supporters of the  Greens, we expect that the Maori Party will have different concerns in their negotiations. The Maori Party matters big time to Key, because it represents a paradigm shift for National and his existing partners are on the verge of collapse. But we would expect whanau ora and other welfare, work and education priorities for the Maori Party to be tops.We can understand that. We know that Tainui and Ngai Tahu are already talking about using their relativity clause for shares in the SoES.So we don’t expect them to stand up against asset sales, even though not doing so may cost them rank and file support.

Nobody will notice too much if Peter Dunne departs at the next election as he has been arguably the most boring politician since Keith Holyoake if anyone remembers him…


But Act has beautifully self destructed. And it couldn’t happen to a nicer group ! Don Brash and Don Nicolson on climate change is too much to bear. And Don Brash thinking that cows are carbon neutral because they eat grass plumbed whole new depths of dumbness. Great to see that both of them commanded such minor electorate support. So the ACT vote has gone to National and ACT is hopefully dead.


Winston Peters performed superbly , and will provide further good opposition to asset sales, for which there is no mandate still .He( they now ) is/are opposed to the ETS but with National, Labour and Green support that will stay. Although expect the National Party to try to water down further the agricultural entry date, when it gets a bit closer.


People love Key. He is approachable, and extremely likeable. And has carried the National Party with him.Even the majority opposition to asset sales wasn't enough to stand in his way.


So what could be in the MoU with the greens…
Our guesses?
More insulation – makes sense at every level.Economic, social and environmental.


Charges for water- which makes massive economic sense as well as environmental sense.


Cleaning rivers- its hard to pretend the brand “100% Pure” can work when you cant swim in the rivers.


Some possible  support for clean tech industries. This will be pushed from a number of quarters and Key is reportedly annoyed that the R&D tax credit has gone. This will need to be done through other than a Government Department mechanism because they will be starved of oxygen for the next three years.Australia now has a $10 billion cleantech fund, as well as R&D credits,so if the Government wants anyone to stay here and develop clever solutions they will need to do something 


Taking some action on child poverty. John Key’s body language in the Leaders Debate indicated that he personally found the child violence/poverty issue a worry and if he is going to be there for a while yet, we think he will want to make a difference.

Toxic clean ups.. National will have to do this anyway and will likely present it as a victory for the Greens.

But what else will we get ?
Massive exploration of oil fields. With a pretence at a “world class” governmental monitoring unit. Given that BP and the US Government didn’t know how to clean up the Gulf of Mexico spill this is a complete nonsense. The risks are extreme. The oil is in very deep areas and any spillage will be catastrophic and unstoppable. We wonder too at the dollars will actually be as much as projected – but more importantly the cost to the country and the risks to the country are so high .
Unfortunately its not on our doorstep as the Rena is and most people will prefer to trust that the Government knows what it is doing .

Mining will be opened up . The Bathurst decision is the start of many we fear. So watch the West Coast and other areas closely.


Lignite deposits in Southland that make Solid Energy drool will be opened.As soon as Solid Energy is partially privatised the Government can also legitimately claim that it has to act in the interests of all shareholders to maximise revenue.


Fracking all over the place. National loves fracking and has done nothing to mitigate the risks both of massive poisoning of the ecosystem, especially the water and of the earthquake linkage. Expect massive fracking before people wake up to the risks.

And Labour. Phil Goff will clearly go as leader, but will give them to Christmas we think to work it out. Of the potential candidates David Parker has the best understanding of the importance of the environment. He is impressive, bright and capable.Although sometimes doesn't communicate to a big audience well. But will need to take a young woman such as Jacina Adern with him to signal some changing of the guard.

And David Cunliffe has a fatal flaw for a politician. His eyes disappear when he is speaking and unfortunately for him that means no one can see his eyes. That's just a no-go. Tough , unfair we know ... But true all the same ...But who knows how the Labour Party caucus works?

So that's our picks... Feel free to pick it apart.

4 comments

If you see any unhelpful comments, please let us know immediately.

janeyew 10°

Big job ahead of Labour and quite hard to see how that will work. Great job Greens, but agree that we are now in for a minerals rush and given the evidence at both Pike River and the Canterbury Earthquake hearings I have no faith at all that we will have any real expertise in government agencies.I find the rush to mine and drill terrifying economically and environmentally.

Written in November 2011

Andy

<em>And Don Brash thinking that cows are carbon neutral because they eat grass plumbed whole new depths of dumbness.</em>
Would you mind expanding on this comment? CO2 gets sequestered by pasture, cows eat grass, cows belch out some methane. The methane reacts with the OH radical in the atmosphere to break down to water and CO2. This happens in around 10 years.

Methane has a "global warming potential" of about 21 times that of CO2, according to the official calculation by the IPCC.
Therefore, there is a ramp-up period, for a given herd, when the "global warming potential" of the herd increases, but this reaches equilibrium in around 10 years by the reasoning above.

A similar argument can be applied (in reverse) to the sequestration of CO2 in trees.

Do you disagree with this line of reasoning?

Written in November 2011

ianhp

Dairy farming is far from carbon neutral. Agriculture generally is responsible for about 49% of our GHG emissions and the belching of methane from cows is harmful.The methane seems to be made in their stomachs as I understand it. So too their massive water cost and their pollution of waterways in general environmental terms. Was interesting to see both the Dons in Act do so badly.The argument they put forward that NZ only contributes 0.2% of global GHG and therefore we can do nothing is not a goer.
Am thinking it would be interesting to see an analysis of who voted for what party.

Written in November 2011

Andy

The previous commenter is conflating issues around water management with methane emissions.
I have already explained in my previous comment how the methane that cows create gets recirculated via grass and photosynthesis, but these facts seem to fall on deaf ears.

NZ keeps on comparing methane emissions with our CO2 emissions, but this is comparing apples and oranges. CO2 is coming from fossil fuels, CH4 (methane) is coming from CO2 and water, hence is a closed loop.

NZ dairy is 2.5% of the world's total dairy production, yet we choose to penalise our primary industry, alone in the world, because it is "fair".

Sorry, it is just plain dumb, especially when we have some of the best pasture management in the world, leading to better CO2 sequestration in the soil (IPCC report showed this)

Written in December 2011

Add a comment
  • to get your picture next to your comment (not a member yet?).
  • Featured project

    View now ›

    Sponsors

    Featured organisation

    View now ›