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.

Meat anyone?

So, another week and another poll on the beautiful Zackarate Island. But what's this? A gruesome photo? SHOCKNESS!

Yes, the topic we were talking about is related to the killing of innocent animals and no, I am not a raging righteous vegetarian. The poll question was would you consider/do you eat less meat for the environment? The first point I would like to make is less related to the environment, and more to decaptitated cows. I believe that if you can't handle the truth about where meat comes from, then you shouldn't be eating it. That point alone has created many a vegetarian. It also graphically illustrates the fact that city slickers have become quite withdrawn from where there food comes from. Put someone like myself (who has only lived in a city) on a small organic farm on an island in the middle of nowhere with all the food growing that I could need, and, within a year, I would probably starve to death. Thus, even city slickers should be brought up with the knowledge of how to grow food, making us more in touch with our diets, more likely to grow some fantastic home vegies, and thus lead more healthy and sustainable lives.

Back to the poll, when talking about climate change, especially in this country, we happily look at transport and say we can cut emissions here, here and here. The energy and industry sectors come under the same scrutiny, in general terms. But never do we seriously look at agriculture (unless you're in the Green Party of course), writing it off as a necessary evil when it comes to emissions and environmental impact. Of course that's true, to some extent. But the fact of the matter is that we eat too much meat, both from a nutritional point of view and a environmental one.

Simple physical principles come into this whole meat business. According to my year 12 biology text book (so it must be true!) plants take 1/100th of the energy out of the sun that hits their leaves and turn it into biomass (stored energy to make things simple). In turn, herbivores and omnivores eat the plants and take 1/10th of the energy out of them, which they turn into biomass of their own. Omnivores and carnivores can eat this meat and again take 1/10th of the energy from it. So, no matter how you calculate the end result (whether by over-simplifying or not) you need a lot more resources and space to grow 1kg of meat than to grow 1kg of veggies. With veggies you don't need to grow food to feed them, they make their own. Besides that, plants take carbon out of the atmosphere when they grow, animals put it back in. Cows especially produce a lot of methane, which is a gas with roughly 20 to 25 the warming potential of carbon dioxide when talking about climate change.

In an ideal world we would all be vegans (and be happy about this arrangement). But in reality, even if we wanted to, not everyone could become a vegan. Everyone's bodies work differently, and it's about finding the right balance for you. If you can be a healthy vegan, and are happy with that, fantastic, big ups to you. But if not, don't sweat it. It's not worth putting your health on the line for. But in general we eat too much meat. Eating too much animal protein can cause kidney damage, probably among other things. As with everything, moderation is the key.

And as for those nay-sayers who say Greenies are only about less less less in a more more more culture, thus being killjoys who will never win much support, I say SHUT UP! We are all in the same waka, and if we don't start taking sustainability seriously, we will all drown together (though the poor ones on the bottom of the heap will drown first of course). By framing sustainable changes positively, we will do much more to steer ourselves towards sustainability. Who doesn't want to eat more healthy, therefore live more healthily and be happier with more energy? You can count me in.

As for myself, you can put me in the I consciously eat meat less category. Depending on my living situation, I try and eat meat no more than twice a week (including fish). If you don't want to go vegetarian, I suggest you try setting a reduced meat quota. It's amazing how little you notice the lack of meat! And if someone said to me I had to kill the next animal I ate meat from, I would have to. Otherwise I would be a complete hypocrite. But I would be thankful that it gave it's life so that I could be healthy. Such is the circle of life.

(Photo by 10b travelling)

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.

Have you decided who you will give your party vote to yet?

The results of this weeks poll. Obviously not a scientific one... I hope more people vote in my one for this week, as do I hope there will be a good turnout come November 8. But, as I said when I started this blog, internet polls don't show anything statistically sound, unless they have a very high number of voters, in which case they are a general indication only. I use them in this blog to raise issues.

I hope the voters who have decided in this poll are all voting Green... I do have a feeling there is an ACT voter who voted in the poll though but no matter. They are few and far between at the moment luckily.

Have you decided who you will give your party vote to yet?

With newly invigorated blogness happening, time for a new poll - which will now be renewed weekly. I promise.

This one's a simple one. Have you decided who your going to vote for? I know I have...

With all the madness of silly season almost in full swing it's interesting to take a look at how many people decide who to vote for (and sometimes also whether to vote) over what happens during the next 52 days (and counting). And with MMP that can have a huge impact on governing arrangements after the election.

On another similar note, a general whinge about the importance placed on polling data. It becomes an obsession in the media, and leads to what Nicky Hager calls "horse racing politics". It is a week to week commentary about who did what and how that effected their polling (even if it is relatively unreliable data), rather than the analysis we so desperately lack about what each party's policies are and how that will effect the country. But of course an election campaign focused on policy would be too much to ask for...

And, back to the matter at hand, maybe some of you undecideds are waiting for more policies to be announced perhaps?

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 you give money to beggars?

An interesting poll this (last) week. Seems the viewers of my blog were split on this moral issue which has no clear answer.

In my opinion of course you can't give a definitive answer that fits with every case. Of course the best thing you can do to help their situation is give them a way to improve their situation greatly, and I'm no expert in this field. But it obviously varies from situation to situation what that might be - some of them have mental and drug problems, others are just simply poor and don't have a place fit in in this world. So I would say it depends on their situation whether you should give them money or not, but if you want to save your resources for more structured programs than that's not a bad thing - as long as you follow through. It's just difficult to judge when the situation presents itself raw in front of your eyes to know what's best. Unfortunately, especially in the countries I've been visiting, there are far too many people like that. Responsibility to do something has to fall on Governments and communities - but in some countries they have many problems of poverty to deal with.

My previous post discussing this issue is here.

Should you give money to beggars?

For this week´s poll another issue more focussed on developing nations.

In the last three months I have seen more beggars and street people than I have in my whole life. I must say, I think it was worst in Brazil, where they have serious inequality issues, though Mexico, especially Mexico City (when compared with Guadalajara) has its fair share. So, should you give them money when they hold out their hand in desperation?

Some things to think about. There are many enterprising people in the countries where I´ve been, earning money how they can, given their situation (educationally and so on). There are so many shoe-shiners, food stalls, CD stalls, newspaper stands and people selling things on the metro and busses, all doing what they can to make money. Not an ideal situation, but teach a man to fish... you know how the saying goes. Perhaps money is better spent on good projects, rather than just handing out money to the individual, so that these people can become self-dependant. A tough thing to think about though when you are confronted by those looks - looks you don´t want to have to get used to.

Another thing, from the point of view of a visitor. One example that illustrates this point well is when I was asked for money by a kid in Sao Paulo who looked perfectly clean, healthy and well-fed. Tourists are seen as a way to make money, nothing else, and people in certain areas have been trained to approach them to make money - whether by selling them something or just begging. Again, not a nice situation, and how can you tell whether the person needs the money more than the next?

Furthermore, how can you tell what they are going to spend the money on? A good case example was Salvador in Brazil. There is a horrible problem with crack there from what I heard, and you can definitely see it in the eyes and health of some of the street people. If you just hand them money, are you simply supporting their crack problem? With structured programs at least you can tell what you are putting your money towards. The other option is, of course, giving them food (and watching them eat it, incase they swap that for drugs, which is not unheard of according to Lonely Planet).

Then there is judging it on their situation. In Mexico City I saw a few people holding out drug perscriptions for them or their children which they claimed they couldn´t afford to fill. There are also many old and disabled people who possibly wouldn´t be able to get employment, and if they can´t get a benefit they have no other choice. Compare this to people who look more like they can make money themselves. However, many street people have problems greater than meets the eye - mental problems, drug problems. But of course these people are probably better in some sort of care to help them get better.

So should you give beggars money directly? A head versus heart question, especially when the situation is infront of your eyes. Or should you just save your money and time for trustable programs, and political action, even though you know that they wont reach every individual, and every situation, and wont help the person in front of you right then, and maybe ever. Being one person, where are you best to place your eggs ( if you indeed want to give any away). So have a think, and move your mouse to the right to vote now.

Developing nations and sustainability

With the latest poll result for this week in, it appears my blog readers who decided to vote agree with my opinion. Yes, everyone does need to play their part in becoming more sustainable. The living world is in a dire state, and as we just continue to produce so much pollution and waste and use up so many resources, things have now reached tipping point. So rich and poor nations alike need to do a lot more, no matter what the state of their population´s living conditions are. Environmental wellbeing and quality of life go hand in hand.

A good example of environmental health and human health from developing nations is a major thing that I didn´t touch on in my last post on the issue. Water quality. Besides the undrinkable tapwater of everywhere I´ve been (which creates extra waste in the form of many plastic drinking bottles), in the Amazon you could clearly see one of the major reasons why the water is so sick. Sewage; raw and untreated. Unfortunately there didn´t seem to be any adequate sewage facilities at all for the people who lived along the Amazon. I saw long drops that were actually a very short drop, straight into the river below. The numbers of people who live along this river can be having no small impact on the health of it, and therefore no small impact on themselves. Perhaps one example of a simple sustainable development for them is composting toilets - dealing with the sewage, and providing the locals with fertiliser for their food crops.

Which brings me to another point in this complex issue. Developed nations, being disproporionately responsible for the pressing current environmental issues such as climate change, have something they can do to help the future of all humanity. Help developing nations develop sustainably by sharing sustainable technology they have developed - which will improve the quality of life for everyone involved.

There are of course many other issues to work through, from liability of developed nations, to the best way to share technology and transform the global economy. The greatest issues of our time, but with care we have the ability to improve the quality of life of everyone and become more sustainble and equal. But the urgency of the situation can not be exaggerated, especially not by scientists who almost unanimously agree it is very urgent. And if we do nothing, who will loose out the most? The poor, of course, especially in poor nations.

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.)

While I´m at it...

...I thought I might finally continue with the tradition that I started when I started this blog, and get the whole poll thing rollin´. So this is my last poll. It had the longest ever running time of about a month, and, well, the people (15) have spoken. I am loved. And, authentically, the stuff at the bottom of the poll is in Spanish as I am in a Spanish-speaking country. Nice. Next poll up soon.

Old polls make Zack a happy boy, even if no one cares enough to vote

The poll that I put up two weeks ago I never commented on. But then again no one voted.

The question was how happy are you? Something to mull over in your own time perhaps, and you can read about some of my views on happiness in previous posts. But basically it comes down to contentment. To be happy most of the time you need to be content with whatever your circumstances are (which of course can discount certain major traumatic events, but after they happen, you should be able to become content again, after accepting the past). So whether your in Wellington, as you have been most of your life, or your all alone in some random place on the other side of the world, try and be happy with the moment that you have been given. It's simple once you get your head around the idea, it's just in the practice that counts. And I'm relying on that philosphy to get me through the next four months without any major emotional hitches. Good luck Zack. Thanks Zack. So alone.

This weeks poll is, well, a little special. And I will leave it up for longer than a week as I probably wont have time to change it much over the next wee while. And it is a bit of a special poll.

Get out and vote!

C'mon guys, get out and vote. In my poll this week. And in the general elections too - especially you young people who tend not to. It's so important! And it makes a huge difference. But more rants on that another time.

As for my poll, it leads on from my post a few days ago about sustainable happiness. Are you happy? What makes you feel that way? Is it because you have lots of time to socialise and generally hang with cool people? Is it because you work hard, but then have heaps of money to spend on new shiny things? Do you feel crap for the above reasons, or because the above aren't true for you. Are you naturally positive or depressed.

Place votes now!

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.

Do I trust internet polls?

Time for my opinion on my poll this week. The result showed that some people were trusting, and some people very paranoid. But it mainly shows not many people are visiting my blog so far...

As for me, I would go with the smallest minority (ie. I do trust people, OK?!?! Just not everyone.) Internet polls have no statistical basis whatsoever - so keep that in mind when viewing the results to my polls (as this will be especially the case for ones that have very few votes). Internet polls are not a representative sample of anything, they are just who visits the site and wants to vote. So whenever the media quotes internet polls, or txt polls, I get really frustrated. They mean nothing! And many people trust them as being accurate polls, because there is a low level of statistical literacy out there. Sure, if a few thousand people voted it might give a very rough indication of the population's feelings, but it's nothing to be reported about. The purpose internet polls serve is to raise an issue (which is what I will use mine for mainly), add an interactive aspect to the site, and to show the media outlet the opinions of their viewers. So don't trust them!

As an interesting side-note, I heard that because the "scientifically" done polls (where they try and get a representative sample of the population) only use landlines to call people, they miss a disproportionate amount of less-well off people, as many of them only have cell phones to avoid paying landline connection charges. So polls are often slightly more right-wing than the actual truth. Don't know how true this is, but it reaffirms that it is very difficult to get a truly representative sample, even when your trying to.

Watch out for my next statistically-irrelevant poll, which I will put up tomorrow.

My second post on my first blog

Alright, I wont keep on using that title, but it feels a bit strange jumping straight into it, so I'm using this post to explain a little more. More and more details will come up as I develop this blog and this concept, so for those of you who don't know what this blog is about, never fear, that will become more and more clear.

So to start off today, I thought I would do something which I will try and do every week (though don't hold your breath while I'm cruising up the Amazon). Anyone have anything to contribute to the debate about my poll? I will put some points out there, and then put my opinion forward after the poll closes.

The poll this week is: Do you trust internet polls? This fits into the wider issue of media hype, misuse of statistics, and the flood of polls and statistics that drown many new stories. We have regular polls on support for political parties in this country, which ends up making the election a horse race rather than a battle of ideas, reasonings and values. Furthermore polls are just single questions which can be leading, and also are often answered with people's first reaction, rather than after a well-informed discussion of the issue. Now, with the internet, there are millions of polls happening all around the world simultaneously, some on sites that no one visits, and some on internationally acclaimed news and current affairs websites. But how statistically accurate are internet polls when we can barely trust polls from the best established research firms such as Colmar Brunton? Or do they play an important role in shaping debate and bringing public mood to the attention of policy makers?

So please vote on my poll, but more importantly comment on this post about the wider issues that I have touched on, and I will post again on this issue more firmly about my opinions in a week.