My speech from a debate on the Emissions Trading Scheme

Here is my speech I gave last night in a debate at Vic University about the Emissions Trading Scheme. I like to think I won, so below are my convincing arguments so you can judge for yourself!

Tena koutou katoa.

My name is Zachary Dorner, and I'm proud to be standing before you as the Green@Vic candidate, campaigning for the Party Vote for the Green Party this election year. It's great to see Environment Week rolled out for another year – something I had the pleasure of doing last year when I was Environmental Officer. It’s great to see what an excellent job Haley's done this year. Thanks to VUWSA for organising this important debate about an issue close to my heart.

Emissions trading schemes are a bit like Weetbix. Many people find them bland, they have a complicated structure with many layers, and unless you sweeten them up (and add some milk) they are hard to swallow.
If you add too many sweeteners to Weetbix, and too much milk, you get a sickening mess, and you lose all nutritional value of the Weetbix. And that’s what John Key did as soon as he got into power. He added billions of dollars worth of subsidies (sweetners) to our biggest polluters, put too much milk on the New Zealand economy and environment, and left tax payers to foot most of the bill. No nutritional value, no environmental or economic benefit, just a big, sickening, soggy mess. John Key’s ETS was a failure from the start.

The Green Party has a plan for a smart green economy that works for everyone – the people, the environment and our future.

Although the evidence is all around us, and there’s a near consensus of climate scientist on climate change, that it is real and caused by humans, some people still need convincing. Last year was the warmest year on record – roughly equal to 2005 and 1998. And record temperatures continue. If that’s not enough for year, here’s what the NZ Herald said last Saturday (16 July):

It began with the China floods in May last year, coinciding, in June, with widespread fires and drought in Russia, coinciding with record breaking monsoon flooding in Pakistan that killed 1,500 people and left 20 million homeless. That was followed by a "once-in-a- century" drought in the Amazon - except that the last once-in-a-century event in the region happened just five years before.

In December a million hectares of Colombia was underwater. Sri Lanka had its heaviest rains for 100 years. The Philippines had four weeks of sustained rain in January, Brazil had catastrophic mudslides killing 600 people and then Queensland was inundated - the flood waters covering an area larger than Germany and France combined.

In April the mighty Mississippi and Missouri rivers swelled to record levels causing spillways to be opened and mass evacuations, followed by one of the largest tornado outbreaks in American history. Meanwhile a nine-month drought continues to parch Texas and Oklahoma and China evacuated some 500,000 people in June from floods along the Yangtze River following the worst drought in 50 years.

New Zealand meanwhile has experienced record temperatures, record flooding in Whakatane, and a host of unusual weather conditions, including two tornados – one deadly one in Auckland, and one on the Kapiti coast.

As predicted, climate change is bringing unstable weather, and a climate in which it is harder to grow our food - already raising global food prices - and harder to plan for the future. A future our generation is meant to inherit.

In order to deal with this issue, a research levy on agriculture emissions was proposed in 2003, later ditched due to lobbying from farmers against what they called the “fart tax” (though everyone knows most emissions come from cow’s burps). Then a carbon tax was proposed, and ditched around 2006. This was followed by the release of Al Gore's movie about climate change, which promptly convinced the then Labour Government that something needed to be done – so they constructed a hideously complex ETS instead, which was passed in 2008, with the help of the Greens and NZ First.

We had strong reservations about it, but with just 6 MPs, we had limited sway and felt it was important to get a price on carbon – though not without improving the scheme as much as we could before supporting it, including a billion dollars into a home insulation scheme. It was a start.

Enter John Key's National Government. Ignoring old bowls of soggy Weetbix laying around the Ministry for the Environment, as soon as he got into power, he trashed the ETS. He halved the price on carbon, took the cap out of the “cap and trade” system, and added in billions of dollars of subsidies to our largest polluters, which are allocated via a non-transparent process. Polluters will not pay their full and fair share for their pollution until around 2084 under the scheme. Not very smart when you’re borrowing $300 million a week.

Any emissions reductions achieved in the short run will be negligible – possibly around only 0.7% below business as usual by the end of next year, by which time we should have done a lot more. What the science tells us, is that developing countries need to cut emissions by 25 to 40%, below 1990 levels, by 2020 - which we are already over 20% above in NZ. Arguing with the science of environmental limits is like arguing with an oncoming bus – the laws of physic will win every time.

Meanwhile, an ETS, especially one as weak as the current one we have in place, needs other measures to be in place to ensure emission reductions. John Key instead has decided to commit nearly $10 billion to build just seven new motorways over the next three years, increase our mining on conservation land (yes, he's still planning to do that, just not as bad as originally planned), drill for oil in our deep oceans with little or no regulation to prepare us for an oil spill, and allow some of our best farmland in Southland to be mined for lignite, the most dirty form of dirty coal.

So clearly John Key does not care about the environment, does not care about our generation, and he certainly does not care about our most valuable asset – our clean green brand in our beautiful country.
Luckily we have the Green Party in Parliament – the Party with the best understanding of the economic and environmental situation we find ourselves in. Whether we care or we don't, New Zealand's clean green brand is worth a lot of money. Further, the global economy is going green, with or without us.

The green economic wave is coming, could be worth $6 trillion annually globally already and we can either let it swamp us, or ride it from our prime position. As the new business group Pure Advantage points out, we risk loosing this prime position – slipping from number one in the international Environmental Performance Index, to number 15 last year in the space of just 5 years. The Green Party has a plan for a smart green economy that works for everyone, that will reverse this decline.

In terms of climate change, the Green Party’s current policy is to improve the ETS, though our first preference has always been a carbon charge, recycled into income tax reductions. This goes along with our plan for ecological tax reform – to tax bads, like carbon emissions, and reduce taxes on goods, like income.

We would improve the ETS by putting a cap on emissions, and make sure we cover taxpayer liabilities under international agreements like Kyoto as fast as possible. We will also put a cap on how many international credits can be purchased, so emissions reductions are at home, like Australia is planning. This is important to ensure we move towards a smart, green economy here in New Zealand, rather than paying others to do it for us in their countries.

And of course we need to look at the resilience of our entire economy, to make sure we are the full package – the real deal. So the Green Party will transfer money from motorways into better, faster and smarter public transport, to make sure New Zealanders have choice in how they get around, and that they don’t bear the brunt of rising petrol prices. We will protect our most treasured places, and ensure any mining done is not going to wreck our beautiful country, or our climate. We would clean up our waterways. And we would use our public assets (rather than selling them) to partner with private industry, to develop clean tech and green tech, such as Whispertech’s current partnership with publicly owned Meridian Energy.

By taking these important steps, and having an economic vision for New Zealand, we will transform our economy into a smart green economy. We will be playing to our Pure Advantage and we will be setting ourselves up for future prosperity with a quality of life that we can be proud of.

John Key’s ETS was a failure from the start, and so is his lack of economic vision. Only a Party Vote for the Green Party will ensure a we create smart green economy that works for everyone, so we have a future worth looking forward to.

My campaign opening speech!

Here it is.

It was a few months ago now, but it feels like the campaign really is heating up now, so I thought it was still a good time to post it. Enjoy!

Kia ora koutou,

It’s great to see so many of you come in support of the Greens@Vic campaign launch party for election 2011! I’m Zachary Dorner, the Greens@Vic Candidate, and I’m excited to be sharing the stage with the awesome James Shaw, our Wellington Central Candidate, and one of our hard working Green MPs, Dave Clendon.

Thanks to the awesome Greens@Vic organising team for helping make this night a success. And thanks heaps to Sophie and the Realistic Expectations for coming to entertain us, and Martin Wilson for providing sound and lighting gear.

The theme of this campaign launch, and of the opening campaign around the country is “What are you looking forward to?” Today at Vic we’ve been asking many fellow students that question, and you can get your photo taken too tonight by our roaming photographer Simon.

We’re asking this question to help us all think about what the future might hold. JS/DC has already outlined what an important year this is for New Zealand, and the question is doubly important for young students like us to ask.

John Key seems like a nice guy and all, and I’d certainly want to have him at my place for a beer and a BBQ. I do, however, have a number of bones to pick with him at this hypothetical BBQ that will never happen.

First question for John – Why did you cut taxes for your rich mates, then cut Working for Families, Kiwisaver and Tertiary Education funding on the grounds of not having enough tax revenue? (You got free tertiary education John, the least you could do is invest in my generation’s education, and our future prosperity.)

Second question – Why do you hate young people? OK, that might be a little bit unfair, but someone looking in from the outside at your policies might conclude that you do. For students like us, if we are looking for a job, we face an uphill battle. (Youth unemployment is at 19%, and even well qualified people are struggling to find work, like you and I should be, come the end of our degrees. That’s a problem with your poor economic management John – not very good for a Party that prides itself on economic management.)

Third question – Why do you hate young people? This time the question is a little fairer. When you grew up, you could swim safely in our lakes and rivers, now you’re allowing this to become all but impossible for us. And when you were young you would have thought the weather came and went, but the overall climate would stay the same. But in the last nine months you subsidised big polluters by $800 million to ensure there will be more floods, more freak weather events, and no stability or certainty left in the climate for people in my generation.

Now, John – I would say – if that is your real name, there are really great ways you could change all this. You could join the Green Party or adopt our policies. The Green Party will create a future we can all look forward to.

By supporting the Green Party, you are supporting tertiary education.

By supporting the Green Party, you are supporting Green jobs for all, and a prosperous economy.

By supporting the Green Party you are supporting affordable, warm and healthy housing – and that includes the Wellington student flat.

And at this point John Key would be like “OMG, that lyk totes makes sense now. After today, which is Friday, I will get straight to work on that Green economic vision that is so much better than my current one, which is non-existant.”

Yes, my friends, that is the type of advocacy I am capable of. And that is why I am your candidate, for Victoria University, and the Green Party, this election year.

I come from a place of social and environmental advocacy that started while listening to Bomber on Channel Z – an awesome radio station, for those of you not old enough to remember. I built up a Green group at school, Onslow College out in J-ville. Now I am studying economics and environmental studies at Vic, I spent last year as VUWSA’s Environmental Officer, and this year I am campaigning for the Green Party through Greens@Vic.

Through my experiences I have worked out a magical formula, which I shall reveal to you tonight. Ready? You can change the world, learn heaps of cool shit in the process, and have an awesome time all at once.

And I can see that you all agree, which is why you are here tonight to have a good time, and start changing New Zealand for the better. So make sure you are signed up, to help the Greens@Vic out, and to help out the Wellington Greens this election year.

You will be able to join us in such projects as: votes and vino – heading out to the Wairarapa to get their votes, and to sample some of their delicious wine. The warm healthy rentals competition, where we try and find the crappest flat in Wellington, to make the point that we should set minimum standards on rental housing. We’ll be enrolling young people to vote, and we are planning on creating a student army in the two weeks after exams finish and before the election on November 26, to paint the town Green.

You can also help us with great election moments such as dressing up in costumes, secret late night missions, putting up and taking down billboards in the rain, and so many other fun fun times.

And at the end of it all, on election night when we get more Green MPs elected than ever before and have a great party, you can think “I was a part of making that happen”. So make sure you give your details to one of the people roaming around with clipboards so we can keep in touch.

We also need money, and lots of it if we are to cement ourselves firmly as New Zealand’s third political Party. We don’t have large corporate backers, so we need everything we can get. So even if you, the poor student, put the $2 you have in your pocket into one of our koha buckets tonight, you are still helping make a difference.

So what I am looking forward to? I’m looking forward to a great year. We will have good times, meet new people, and most importantly, increase the Green Party vote. Then we can get to work on creating a New Zealand we can all look forward to.

My submission on why 50 by 2050 is not good enough for climate change

Make your submission by 28 February on this vital issue. And feel free to steal my points!

Submission on Gazetting New Zealand's 2050 Emissions Target: Minister's Position Paper

1. Summary

1.1 New Zealand should have a stronger target of 80 per cent reductions by 2050.

1.2 As a 21 year old, I am very concerned about the vast amounts of evidence of a worsening global climate change over my lifetime, and that of future generations. The evidence suggests the situation is urgent and developed countries such as New Zealand, with high per capita emissions, need to reduce emissions quickly. Therefore we need a stronger target than 50 by 50, interim targets to get there, and clear policies in place to meet those targets.

2. Stronger target

2.1 Based on the global commitment to no more than 2ºC of warming, which New Zealand supports, developed countries need to reduce their emissions by at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. As New Zealand supports this target, we should therefore commit to at least an 80 percent cut by 2050. This is in line with developed countries, such as within the European Union, which intend on doing their part to reach the global target of a 50 percent chance of warming being no more than 2ºC of warming.

2.2 Given that developing countries have an obligation, in terms of capacity, as well as in terms of equity with the majority, developing world, we should aim to reach our target in terms of gross emissions. Failing that, given our unique emissions profile, we should meet this with net emissions, only after trying to reduce our gross emissions as much as possible first.

3. Apples with apples

3.1 Our target needs to be transparent. A transparent target must be set in net emissions, or gross emissions. Gross 1990 emissions to net 2050 emissions is both non-transparent and confusing. Such an insincere target risks damaging our international reputation as clean, green and safe. A large part of our export economy is based on this brand, which is beginning to be undermined as people overseas begin to see us as insincere, given our environmental record. An 80 percent target, which compares apples with apples, will strengthen our reputation rather than erode it.

4. Interim targets

4.1 In order to meet a target 40 years from now, and to prevent runaway climate change, we need to set interim targets to meet our 2050 target. This should include 40 percent by 2020, as this is also consistent with no more than 2 degrees of warming. The Government should clear path to our 2050 target around the 2020 and 2050 targets.

5. Meeting the targets

5.1 New Zealand needs policies in place in order to meet our targets. The Minister's document identifies current Government initiatives. As identified, we need an economic instrument as well as complementary instruments in place to do so.

5.2 The current Emissions Trading Scheme needs to have a cap on emissions, which it does not, in order to meet emission reduction targets. Other complementary measures which should be considered are a moratorium on new coal mines, shifting spending on new motorways to public transport, and a focus on developing the green sector in New Zealand's economy. The large co-benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, as identified in the Minister's paper, should be a strong motivator to reduce emissions and green our economy, beyond the obvious benefits of avoiding catastrophic climate change.

House sitting and other community-minded things

For the last week and a bit my girlfriend Raven and I have been having somewhat of a staycation, but not in its truest form. A staycation is really meant to be about staying at home and relaxing, but we've gone one better - stayed at other people's much nicer homes.

First up was my mother's house, a really lovely old sunny villa, with one skittish black and white cat and a small veggie garden to look after. It's always a bit of a holiday looking after the place, giving us a break from our usual student squalor.

Second, where I am now, is one of Raven's friend's place, by the beach on Wellington's sunny south coast. Though we must depart tomorrow, we've had a lovely time watching the southerlies role in, feeding the cat and the chickens. And I've learnt how to handle and feed chickens, which is a great skill for a city boy to have.

While people are away (including at green events like ReGen) those still at home can have a lovely time in their houses, or atleast learn some new skills. But most importantly its about community. Helping each other out.

Sometimes helping others may be an inconvenience and feel like a burden in our busy lives, or at least not seem like it's in our narrow self interest, which our modern economy so tells us should be our main motivation for everything we do. This has meant we really are becoming separated from one another, and that's to our detriment when we need help ourselves, and for our happiness of spending time with others.

So, especially now when you should have extra time, make sure you help those in need, or ask for help if you need it. Just remember to say please!

From economics to harsh reality: my last week

So I finally have a chance to post - would love to show you my pictures, but will have to leave it till another time. I write from northern India, Dharamshala, where I find myself and my girlfriend Raven, after a week of travelling.

Since my last post I finished exams (just found I got an A+ in one of them, which is awesome), went to a Ecological Economics conference run by the Green Party of Aotearoa, and then shipped off to India (OK, flew. Sorry future generations.)

The Ecological Economics conference was an interesting way to spend time the day after my last exam (on more conventional macroeconomics) but I couldn't pass up the chance of seeing David Suzuki speak. He's an inspirational speaker, and started the conference with putting us within a bio-centric perspective. Instead of the economy, society and the environment being three interlocking, equally-sized circles, a more accurate model, he suggested, was one big circle, signifying the biosphere, and thirty million circles within it - one for each species. The human one though, takes up 40% of the area, and is rapidly expanding. Population and consumption of resources by humans has sky-rocketed almost vertically and many times in just 200 years - a tiny blip of time in the 150 000 or so years of modern humans. Although lost on some other speakers in the conference unfortunately, Suzuki also pointed out that 80% of resource-use is by the wealthiest 20% of the worlds population - a fact no leader of a wealthy country will freely admit. And so a few days later I was off to where the rubber meets the road in this reality - India.

India is one of the great emerging economies, with a high economic growth rate, a poor population overall, around one billion inhabitants, and an emerging wealthy class, taking more than their fare share. I arrived late at night in Delhi, after a day tour around Singapore, which also has a high growth rate, but is more wealthy overall. Four million people situated on a tiny island, with 90% housed apartments in the sky through a government scheme. It's a very clean and wealthy city, with a mind-bogglingly busy port, and an ironically interventionist, single-part government; ironic given it's incredibly high rate of economic growth. It was a great juxtaposition from the city we were about to find ourselves in.

We had heard Delhi was a horrible place from many different people before we got there, and we arrived a quite Indian man from our hotel to pick us up and take us there. The ride from the airport felt like a destruction derby - with less destruction, and more derby, but the car with the front bumper hanging on by a couple of screws, squealing around beside us, certainly increased the destruction side of things. They are incredibly skilled drivers, as we were to discover, weaving in and out of optimistically-painted lane dividers, fitting in as many vehicles into a small space as possible, and beeping to say "I'm coming through!" rather than relying on the silent and leisurely indicators we use in the West. Our room was nice - three star, and we quickly fell asleep.

Our first day was a bit of a walk to get orientated, around Conaught Place, near our hotel. Dogs, dirt, and toilet smell all through the street. Many an eager rickshaw driver, tout and salesman tried to sell us something, or convince us to use a "Government" tourist bureau. Lots of people complimented my beard before trying their tricks - the next day it was Raven's Indian dress she bought the day before to fit in more appropriately with the culture. Despite our best efforts we were screwed over a couple of times - something that gets easier to avoid the more time you spend in a place. I thought this was free market capitalism at its best - game theory of each person trying to screw over the other, especially as they don't think they will ever see you again in the vast city of millions. Needless to say it was quite horrible.

We got to the Red Fort and a Muslim temple on day two. It was also the Muslim festival of Eid al-Adha, where they sacrifice animals (best to read the link to get a less simple an naive account...). Coincidentally there were lots of goats being traded that day, and lead around the city to people's homes or wherever. We ate some spicy food and gave ourselves horrible stomach pains, and the next day got the hell out of there, to our relief.

Yesterday we flew into Dharamshala, and got a taxi to just north of it, Mcleodganj. Here the Dalai Lama resides, we're at the foot of the Himalayas, and everything is Free Tibet. It's a nice quiet place - slightly spoiled by all the rubbish and fast traffic through its narrow one-way roads - but it's great to be here. We're here for at least the next week, and the internet is surprisingly good, so you'll hear from me soon!

No-Hopenhagen? COP-out? The UN FCCC-ed up?

It's now just over a month since I got back from Copenhagen at what was the experience of a lifetime. The COP15, the event that was built up to be where world leaders decide whether to save us all, or sign a suicide pact. So, I've had some time for reflection.

Here are the main things I learnt from the mad house of the UNFCCC:

1. Every country is in it for themselves - they just have differing analyses of what that actually means. In the case of China, it appears they believed their economic growth to help them become a superpower in the future was more important than the climate which that will be based on. The US was similar in terms of the minor cuts they were willing to commit to. And countries like the Maldives realised that they needed a deal in Copenhagen to stop from drowning under rising seas. Capitalism is no small player in creating these differing world views, and as always the poor and vulnerable loose out, the rich and powerful who win, no matter how stupid they actually are. We need to keep pushing for a recognition that the collective good being put first will increase all our prosperity.

2. The UNFCCC process could work, and work well, if countries were not subject to the gross illogicalities I just described.

3. Carbon trading is worse than I thought. It could work well if it wasn't subject to the political process - but that's the case with most things! There are so many outs for rich but selfish countries like New Zealand to exploit (Clean Development Mechanism, REDD, and other such flexibility mechanisms) depending on the system (ie the one that the current NZ government supports) emissions could continue to sky rocket. No wonder Minister for Climate Change Issues Nick Smith is so keen on many of these things.

4. The solutions are out there, but it's up to the people to lead. And they are. This is too big to give up on, so lets keep working towards climate justice, and keep coming up with ideas. We're closer than we think, and there's a massive global movement on what Desmund Tutu called "the winning side" - the side where we get to keep a stable climate, and make a more equitable world! It was fantastic to see so many thousands of young people and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) in Copenhagen supporting this winning effort.

5. There's a lot of smart people out there, but there's also some wackos... Climate change deniers can join the many other crazy conspiracy theorists and retire to their tight-knit communities of nonsense!

6. The Copenhagen Accord said and achieved very little. However, it is political will that is most important if we are to ever reach an agreement for a stable climate. Is there political will? More than we've ever seen. Is this enough? No.

7. But, with the Copenhagen Accord being the only thing to come out of Copenhagen, there seems to be even more uncertainty than there was before Copenhagen - and that was a huge amount. This uncertainty is bad for the climate, bad for us, and bad for business. Who knows what will happen this year?

8. The Green movement is needed now more than ever before.

I leave you with some pictures which contain memories which I will always cherish.

Flight of the Kiwis

“New Zealand stakeholder briefing meeting number one. Negotiators?”

“Present.”

“Stakeholders?”

“Present.”

“Right. Item one. What should we talk about?”

And thus the first New Zealand briefing of day two of COP15 began, just like an episode of Flight of the Conchords. Small office, laminated sign, faded flag, not many people. The only thing missing was a poster saying “New Zealand – ewe should come,” or something of the like.

New Zealand really shows its importance at the UNFCCC by having a tiny office positioned strategically in the far corner of the delegation offices (and being told to pay $24 if the wanted another chair). The stakeholder briefing meeting I went to this morning was small and informal – but should get bigger and more detailed as things go on. Nothing much has happened at COP15 yet, just openings of negotiations. The meetings really are a great opportunity though; an incredible advantage of coming from such a small country that basically all Kiwis are welcome to come and talk details with the bureaucrats about what's happening, and even argue about policy every day.

But we do have to remember that we're not that big a player, but we can have a great positive impact. However, currently our 10 to 20% emissions reduction (below 1990 levels by 2020) targets will not help the developed world reach the 25 to 40% cuts necessary to stop dangerous climate change – and they are highly conditional.

For New Zealand to go to a 20% target, it wants to see global targets set at a level where temperature rises are limited to 2°C (which New Zealand itself wont be going far enough to reach). There are four other demands, including wanting to be able to purchase offsets to be able to reach most of those emission cuts off shore – meaning we'd be paying others to do what we don't want to do, even though ultimately everyone needs to substantially cut emissions. We also want to be able to grow lots of trees tat home to achieve these offsets. Without these, and other conditions being met (many of which having a low level of probability of success) New Zealand's target will be much lower than 20%.

So New Zealand is very demanding for such a small player. In reality we should actively be a positive voice for climate change to protect ourselves, our Pacific neighbours who are drowning under rising seas, and everyone else from the worst effect of climate change. There is so much more we could do, and that would be a huge business opportunity for us – already being well and truly seized by countries like Norway who have experienced strong economic growth recently, and plan to be carbon neutral by 2030. What ever happened to Helen Clark's desires for NZ to become carbon neutral too?

There's so much we could do, we've got a really talented negotiating team here, and New Zealand has a good reputation of purity to live up to. Let's hope John Key has (another) change of heart and directs the New Zealand Delegation to push for a deal we could truly be proud of. That's what COP15 should be about for the humble but talented Kiwis.

I'm famous-er!

This blog has been mentioned on another great blog by an awesome Global Young Green (GYG) from Deutschland called Georg (which has now appeared in the blogs that I like box to your right). I suggest you take a look, especially if your interested in active GYGs from around the world.

The GYGs will be having a meeting in Graz, Austria in August. This conference follows the founding conference in Nairobi in 2007, and the less official meeting in conjunction with the Global Greens Congress last year that I went to! Go to their website if you are interested in attending (and contact someone on the steering committee about it as there doesn't seem to be conference info up yet) to find out more. I wish I had the funding, time, and justification of the carbon emissions for a whirlwind trip to Europe to go...

Atleast I get to go to the exciting local Greens Policy conference all the way over in Silverstream this weekend - my first as the Co-Convenor of the Young Greens! Needless to say there will be plenty of discussion about economic issues.

Fantastic.

Hey John. And Roger.

On the eve of my second week of University ever, I believe it's time to reflect on my first week of University ever.

It was a week of excitement, a week of administration, a week of disappointingly little partying, a week of heaps of free time compared to what I'm used to (meaning I could focus on the more important things in life, such as cleaning my inbox, my room, and constructing a composter) and finally, of course, a week of meeting new people and getting stuck in with the Greens@Vic.

And, just so you know, I am doing a BA, but in really useful stuff - environmental studies and economics. It's going to be a packed three years of geekily exciting learning.

As I start my life of debt, of borrowing to live, I say hey John, I think it's about freakin' time you give students a better start to life. Especially given the ecological debt you're burdening us with by your disregard for the environment on which we depend.

I also start with contemplations of a $100 minimum wage... Come on Roger, use your influence in the new Government!
Disclaimer: For the record, I don't know why ACT on Campus thought the $100 minimum wage speech bubble (plus their other mildly sarcastic signs) was so clever. A $100 minimum wage is just as ridiculous as their desired no minimum wage let the market take it's course. That's not sarcasm, that's irony!

After a break I'm back with a vengence

Kia ora 2009 and readers of my blog - whom I hope will grow in numbers, both through word of mouth, and breeding. I hearby commit to you that 2009 will be a year of regular - though not neccessarily prolific - blogging. I will continue to cross-post onto g.blog where I see fit.

A couple of thoughts to start the year from my new years road trip, which took me to Rhythm and Vines in Gisborne, and north to the Coromandel afterwards.

1) We have a serious drug problem in this country in many ways (and remember, when I use the word "drug" when referring to recreational drugs, this always includes alcohol, which is the worst of the worst.) Having travelled around quite a bit last year, I saw that it's the same in many senses in many countries, but stastically we are one of the worst countries in terms of alcohol abuse. We just drink so much so quickly, and among many people, we lack the ability to have a beer or two or a glass of wine for the enjoyment of it. It's all or nothing. Many of us - especially of my age, but definitely not exclusively - also lack the ability to think beyond drinking as the only option for a Friday or Saturday night. I have my own opinions about how to deal with this - and raising the drinking age is not one of them. We need a shift in our thinking, especially in seeing alcohol as the harmful drug that it is. We should have fun with drugs, expand our relationships and our minds, but not over-indulge.

2) Greater wealth and the accumulation of stuff is the driver of so many people - Whangamata being case and point at this time of year. It definitely is not the driver for me, but drives our current economy. We need to snap out of the dream and focus on what's really important, and realistic. Our environment is in dire straights, but there is currently enough to go around. So freakin' share already!

(The picture above is at Whangamata harbour. What is it that you desire in the photo - the jetski and the "biscuit", or the pristine environment, and the protection of the rare and sensitive ecosystem below the water? What do you think we'll be thinking in 50 years time? It's about having fun, but not over-indulging.)

(Due to a lack of enthusiasm for photography this year, above and below are from a year ago at BW Campgrounds, where my friends and I stayed again in Gisborne for Rhythm and Vines. It was pretty much the same though. Above is New Years day and one of the casualities recuperating from the night before. Below is the workers, paid about $14 an hour this time, predominently brown, many quite young, cleaning up mountains of waste for rich white folk).

Disclaimer: I go to Rhythm and Vines because it's such a huge gathering of my friends and people I know. There's good music and lots of good times. But I ache when I see the mountains of waste from our throw-away existence, even if I may not show it so much at the time.

May your 2009 bring you greater consciousness in your relationships and your understanding of all those things that are bigger than us.

My relationship with 2008: A spiel from the heart

And so it is that the year 2008AD was coming to an end, with just a few days and several traditional celebratory days remaining. That space in space around the sun beckons again which some cultures chose as their time for new beginnings and reflections. So, in that spirit, I shall now do what all good bloggers do, and blog.

How does one sum up a year? Well, for myself it has been a year of self-discovery, and discovering just some of what the world around has to offer. I have had no formal education whatsoever, but learnt so much. I've worked full time in an office. I've travelled alone, and travelled with strangers who quickly become new friends (significantly bulking out my friends list on Facebook). I've run for Parliament, learning a lot from New Zealand masters of Green politics.

One thing my cousin taught me while I was in Canada - one of those important things that you never forget, rather, dwell on at length - was the way the indigenous people of Canada measure individual success. For me it sums up two things really well. It reminds me that there are so many different ways of viewing the world out there already, let alone new philosophies to be thought up. It also, I feel, sums up well the way I think our culture needs to re-jig our priorities. My cousin told me that indigenous people in Canada use one's relationships as a measure of "success" - compared with our measure of money, stuff, and career success. Relationships with those around you, and also the world around are of huge importance to everyone's wellbeing. I have learnt a lot about relationships this year, of all types.

In terms of international affairs 2008 has been a particularly dramatic year. I remember thinking in 2004 that it was, for New Zealand at least, the year that I will see as the start of major weather events increasing in their ferocity. It was the year that we had all that flooding in February, and sure enough, plenty of extreme weather keeps coming. Two thousand and eight will certainly be remembered as crunch time. The sky-rocketing price of oil can not be ignored as a sign of intense pressures on our resources as we really start to live beyond our means. This being a failure of free-market capitalism, helping trigger another failure. Individuals running a system do in fact act with short term self interests as their primary concern, rather than for the greater good, even if the greater good will, eventually, advance their self-interests much further. Cue global financial crisis.

But, with the election of Barack Obama, there are signs of hope. No more Bush has got to be good for the world - he's done pretty well at screwing up as much as humanely possible. Now, I don't see Obama as a saviour, but I don't think anyone could possibly have been elected in that country and been able to make the changes we so desparately need. Not at the moment anyway. I think in Obama we got about the best we could possibly have hoped for. For me, the fact that he's black doesn't really matter so much (having grown up in an almost colour-blind environment). It's the fact that he's so multi-racial, and has had so many different experiences in his life. This seems to instruct his politics. He realises that if you want to move forward, you have to bring everyone forward, no matter what viewpoint or religion or philosophy they subscribe to. That is vitally important if we are ever to make the changes that really need to be made. Obama is ultimately going to be a failure - he wont enact a policy in the Middle East that is fair, he wont reform the US economy to a "New Green Deal" of the type that we really need, and he most certainly wont please everyone. But I do think that he will make significant progress on all fronts, and that's what we need not just in 2009, but long beyond that.

And so to my beloved New Zealand. What are we up to? National and ACT running the country? (With some Maori Party flavour in there.) So far all that that has meant is some very rapid backwards-running. I know I'll have to continue to invest in my future by investing my time with the Green Party. If right wing politics is the politics of fear, than Green politics is the politics of inspiration and vision, and that is what (with the help of Mr Obama) we need to use to continue to fight the good (non-violent) fight.

As for me, 2009 will be a year of more learning and growth (jeeze, is that all us young folk do?). I will be starting at university, most likely studying Environmental Studies and Economics (so watch out, I'll be able to spa it with the Business Round Table and people with similarily decrepit views and shatter their very reason for being). I'll also be moving out of the nest (yay!).

So to everyone who's read this - thanks! For those of you who flicked through to this final paragraph - go back and read it all! For my supporters on Facebook - thanks for continuing to grow in numbers. My ego needs stroking every now and again. For everyone - over the next couple of weeks, make sure you reflect, philosophise, and most importantly, work on your relationships. With friends, family, loved ones, yourself, your enemies, your garden, your cat and anything/anyone else you see fit. And make sure you do something a little crazy. Two thousand and nine is going to be a long year.

Takin' one for the team

You may have already seen the (slightly inaccurate) article in todays Herald, but yes, I did dress up as a daredevil to highlight how unsafe cycling in Auckland is. Fellow Green Party Candidate (placed seventh on the list, so a very likely future MP) Kevin Hague joined me on my ride from Newmarket, along with four others.

It was before the launch of the Auckland Transport Strategy the Green Party has put together, putting much more cost effective and sensible options on the table than any other Party to date. It can be seen here. All our MPs and a number of candidates made a Green pilgrimage to Britomart due to the importance of getting Auckland moving to our economy. Each MP used a different non-car method, including walking, cycling, ferry, bus and train, and tenth place candidate David Clendon rode an electric scooter.

An integrated and affordable public transport system, based on three major rapid transport loops around the city, plus much better connections and more frequent services will be money much better spent than on a couple of new roads to nowhere. Plus safe walking and cycling facilities. So let's go Green!

Meanwhile, unfortunately you have to be a daredevil to cycle in Auckland.

PS take this weeks poll about public transport.

Financial crisis explained with lines

Confused about the financial crisis? Never fear, this slideshow is much more authoritative then anything I've seen so far (warning, contains rude words).

Of course this is just a small glitch compared to the problems the global economy is beginning to face due to more and more scarce resources. Could the price of oil have helped to start this financial crisis (even though it was pretty inevitable by the sounds of things)? And, as the Green Party has been saying, we need to use the lowered prices of oil, caused by recessions, as a window of opportunity to invest in sustainable infrastructure, such as better public transport, so that we are insulated from the next, inevitable rise.

It's funny how now that financial markets are plummeting, everyone's forgotten about the record high oil prices earlier this year.

Happy Earth Overshoot Day!

A day after Car Free Day it's Earth Overshoot Day! This is the day that, according to Global Footprint Network data, we have used all the natural resources that earth will generate this year, and from now on this year we are getting ourselves into natural resource debt. As has been the trend for many decades, we are borrowing more this year than we ever have before, now requiring 1.4 planets for our current consumption rate.

There's many more interesting things for you to read about on the link above, but I will mention this. The first year that we were in debt was 1986, which was one day of overshoot. This year it is about 98 days of overshoot. At 18 I have never lived a day of my life in a year that we used less than the earth provided for us. Given that next year I may have to take out a student loan, and my parents have always been in debt to pay for our housing, monetarily I have also never lived free of debt. Why must our economy run like this? Even though GDP has grown, can we really say quality of life has improved, or do we perhaps need to measure a lot more than just money?

On a related note, an interesting discussion has been happening lately about food and it's impact on the planet. The chairperson for the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has come out and said we need to eat less meat. This has had varying reactions, including people like Ken Livingstone (Mayor of London unfortunately) coming out strongly for the carnivores, advocating, if anything, an increase in the consumption of meat. More on this interesting topic later in the week, but in the meantime you can vote in this week's poll.

Should countries be responsible for "exported" emissions?

33% of China's carbon footprint blamed on exports

19:00 28 July 2008 NewScientist.com

Economists now say that one-third of China's carbon dioxide emissions are pumped into the atmosphere in order to manufacture exported goods – many of them "advanced" electronics goods destined for developed countries. "Export goods emissions" account for 1.7 billion tonnes of China's carbon dioxide. That represents 6% of total global emissions – the equivalent of Germany, France and the UK's combined emissions. A large share of these emissions – up to 25% – has been blamed on China's ever-growing export market, but this has not been quantified until now. Now Christopher Weber of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and colleagues have shown that the figure is larger still. Weber's team used a standard model of the Chinese economy, produced by the Chinese government. This model, which operates on the same principle as others produced by every national government, reflects how money has flowed in and out of different sectors of the economy since the 1980s. Matching the model to the dataset allowed the team to calculate that, in 2005, export sectors generated 1.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide – 33% of China's emissions.

An interesting study, and the focus of this week's poll. This issue was looked into at the Global Young Greens conference I attended earlier this year.

With huge amounts of products primarily consumed in developed nations now being manufactured in developing nations, this of course equates to an "exporting" of environmental impacts from the developed nations on to the developing nations. Should, in future global agreements on cutting carbon emissions, nations be responsible for emissions created from products they import, and not for products they export? Would this make things too complicated, in a field where it is already impossible to calculate exact carbon emissions? And, of course, the manufacturing nations benefit (to arguable extents) from the manufacturing being based in their countries. Should this be taken into account?

A very complex issue, but give your brains a bit of a stretch and vote in the poll to the right now.

Should developing nations be doing more to become sustainable?

As promised yesterday, getting back into the issues with a new poll (finally). This weeks is about developing nations.

Over the last two and a half months travelling around Latin America I have seen first hand what some (admittedly overall realitively wealthy) developing nations are like in regards to the environment. Brazil, for example, has a reasonably strong Green Party, and is a world leader in production of ethanol-based "biofuels", or "agrifuels" as the European Greens insist they are called. However, it is also one of the worst offenders in deforestation in the world, behind, only, perhaps, Indonesia (if memory serves me correctly). Although there were signs of an increasing environmental awareness (demonstrated by some advertisements playing up on people´s want to do something for the environment), there were many signs that Brazil was far behind my experiences in New Zealand, which I believe still has a long way to go as well. Plastic was one of the things that pained me most. Plastic bags handed out with everything, even if you were buying a single bottle of water. I learnt pretty quickly how to say "No bag thanks" in Portuguese. I also endured very strange looks from a supermarket bag-packer when I gave her my own reuseable bag (yes, you should take them travelling too). They also use plastic cups for everything, including beer, and piles paper napkins at all but maybe the fanciest restuarants (I´m assuming, as I never went to one that fancy). There were streets that looked like rubbish tips, and especially in busy cities, people handing you fliers at every corner. Furthermore, a city like Sao Paulo had public transport, it seemed, more out of necessity, rather than out of a Government preference for the more sustainable option. Cycling is a bit of a death-wish, and cars always have priority over pedestrians. You often need to be fast to cross the road.

Brazil is similar to Venezuela and Mexico from what I´ve seen. Except cars are bigger in Venezuela and Mexico, presumably because the two countries have lots of oil. Speaking of oil, and turning to other developing nations, the US Government in particular is pointing at countries like India and China for their skyrocketing emissions when nations are debating what to do about lowering emissions. They are also being partially blamed for record-high oil prices due to their increasing thirst.

The argument over consumption of oil though boils down to an important point. Developing nations are still significantly (and very significantly in many cases) poorer than developed nations, and as such have a lot more poverty. Lower incomes = a lesser impact on the environment through less use and wastage of resources. So even if attitudes to the environment are probably overall behind (though not necessarily that far behind) developed nation´s attitudes towards the environment, per capita developed nations still have far less of an impact on the environment than developed nations. Their priorities lie with economic growth far ahead of environmental protection. Shouldn´t they be allowed to develop so they are on par with developed nations, and can the world cope with the increased use of resources? Do developed nations have any liability for the damage already done, and to help distribute resources more fairly?

These are some of the issues in a very complex one. So with the above (and more) in mind, please vote in this weeks poll.

(The photo with this post was taken in the Gran Sabana, Venezuela. It is a national park in which only indigenous people are allowed to live, and was outside a settlement that tourists have to walk through to get to one of the many waterfalls in the areas. It is a sign meant to demonstrate how long it takes different types of rubbish to break down.)

Do I support the fair trade deal with China?

Well, what a week. What an overwhelming response to the poll. But it ended up with a 50-50 split between the yes camp, and the no camp (and I know who both of you two are methinks).

Anyhow, I'll just give my opinion now.

No.

The toss up between money and morality is such a despicable one. Do we need the extra money? No. Do the Tibetans and the Chinese people need their freedom? Yes. It's a very simple equation. And, of course, with peak oil and climate change looming we seriously need to reassess our ability to provide for ourselves (including food an clothing) as a very geographically-isolated nation. When will oil prices rise so much that it's more economical to produce clothing in NZ than important the goods from China? It's anyone's guess whether that will even happen or not, let alone when, but it reinforces the issue of sustainability needing to be the bedrock of any economic policy right now. We need to be asking the question - is this deal moving us further towards economic sustainability, or further away? Because if the answer is the latter, then we should not be going down that road. And though I cannot hope to do in depth analysis on the fair trade deal with China, I very much doubt that it is moving us any closer to being sustainable, even taking into account the "environmental" parts of the agreement (which are, in my understanding voluntary and potentially completely undermined by other parts of the deal which may prevent us from increasing our own environmental regulations).

And as for the human rights question: the argument for the deal is that staying in good relations with China is the only way that we can hope to have an impact on their human rights situation. That might be case, given that they are so much larger than us in every way, but since when has entering into a preferential trade deal been the way to keep up relations with a dictatorship? And what parts of the deal, specifically, are engineered to improve the human rights situation in China? Time and time again it is proven that you can justify anything as long as it is not directly morally repugnant on the grounds that it will help the economy. Furthermore, it is scary the types of underground ways the Chinese Government has started to infiltrate other countries in an attempt to silence its critics not only in China, but also abroad - Amnesty have uncovered some examples of these tactics (though you can search for that info yourself because I can't be bothered).

And, interestingly, a vigil outside the Chinese embassy in Fiji lead to the participants being arrested. Fijian government also snuggling up to China? Because, don't forget, we deal with the bad Governments in those two countries in completely opposite ways. One, we stand next to proudly in their country as we join our two economies in holy matrimony. The other we impose trade sanctions on and turn our backs, plug our ears and say "nanananana we're not listening".

Do you support the fair trade deal with China?

Though admittedly I haven't gone through the deal (that was made public on the day of the signing) with a fine-tooth comb (who has the time to do that?), here are a few things about the deal.

China has an abysmal human rights record. They have a single party system, and voices of dissent are oppressed with Chinese efficiency. Unions are destroyed if they ever start to form, and there is widespread use of child labour. But what does opening up our trade barriers have to do with this? And we can talk to them better now that we've given them preferential trade, right? Besides, we're going to make a killing out of this deal. Local manufacturers will be hurt, but they are almost gone already anyway, and they'll be given time to "adjust" before tariffs are removed completely (ie. move their manufacturing to China). We are an exporting nation, so will benefit greatly. We should be proud that we were the first nation to stand beside the senior Chinese Party officials and put our flag up next to the Chinese one to signify a uniting of two nations under the auspices of trade.

Please vote in poll now, or before it closes if you need time to think and read about it.

PS It's a bit of a fallacy to call it a "free" trade deal. No free trade deal is truly free - otherwise it would be a very simple document. An almost free trade deal is what it really is, with a few mentions of immigration and stuff.