- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

By passing Emission Trading Scam, Hone is actually helping the white mofos rape and rip off the land


Goff: Iwi tree deal little help to Maori
A deal worth up to $50 million with five iwi to gain Maori Party support for the Government's emissions trading scheme has been criticised as giving special treatment to some tribes and doing little to help Maori households. The Maori Party yesterday gave its support to passing the revised emissions trading scheme into law after securing the iwi deal and other gains. The scheme is expected to be passed under urgency in Parliament this week, before ministers travel to Copenhagen for UN climate change talks. Part of the deal allows Ngai Tahu and four other iwi to plant trees on 35,000ha of Department of Conservation land and keep profits from the carbon credits. The deal will last for 70 years and is valued at $25 million to $50 million, depending on the price of carbon. The agreement also allows for more Crown/iwi partnerships in tree planting on conservation and Maori land. The Government has also agreed to include a Treaty of Waitangi clause in the bill, securing specific rights of consultation. Labour leader Phil Goff said the concessions the Maori Party had gained would give Maori companies preferential treatment which other forestry companies would not get.

The very brilliant Idiot/Savant notes that this scam is being rammed through under a ANOTHER misuse of urgency, even National Party Svengali Richard Long calls the law a dog.

Disciplined Smith weathers the storm
The measure of that erosion were remarks made by Richard Long, a former National Party chief of staff. The politically astute one-time press galley journalist had described National's emissions trading legislation as a "dog" which, resulting in part from a race-based deal and lacking across-the-board backing, was akin to Labour's death-rattle, the Electoral Finance Act.

Here are my objections:

The right wing try and pretend that if polluters were forced to pay for their pollution that the big polluters will pass that cost onto us, so we shouldn’t force big polluters to pay for their pollution. Here’s the problem…

1: We are already bloody well paying for these big polluters with an additional $110 Billion now, that $110 Billion should be going into health, or education or job creation or a myriad of other social programmes rather than National’s big polluter corporate mates.

2: If the polluters are forced to pay for their pollution, they will be forced to cut back and look to redesign their production methods and there is an incentive to allow new players to come in and provide cleaner products. Even if the polluter passes that cost to the consumer, we have the power to decide if we should pay for that product putting the power back with us the consumers.

3: The Government amendment means that we will be subsidizing big polluters to the tune of 55% till 2050, that is atrocious (the Arctic is predicted to be ice free by then) and shows the kind of greenwash National have always bee suspected of. Their concern is for their big business donors, not the environmental well being of the planet. National and ACT (who changed their environment policy to climate skeptics after skeptic Alan Gibbs donated $100 000 to them) are in denial over global warming.

And why should we try and stop climate change?

New Zealand was a friend to Middle Earth, but it's no friend of the earth

Because if we don’t want to be seen as eco-hypocrites, we have to make clean and green real, not just a slogan.

This Emissions Trading Scam does nothing to stop climate change, ends up paying big polluters to keep polluting and has managed to pass because the Maori Party have sold out to their corporate whanou for a measely $50 million.

If you aren’t angry, you haven’t been paying attention.

17 Comments:

At 25/11/09 7:43 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're right, user pays all the way.

Tell me bomber, why should a factory worker in Mangere subsidise a millionaires kid from Remuera through Law School?

Btw: I think you will find Hone is fucked off at what is happening in regards to MP/National, hence his anger.

I don't think he would appreciate being lumped in with them, as much as you want to be lumped in with the white motherfuckers he was talking about.

 
At 25/11/09 7:56 am, Blogger Bomber said...

You're right, user pays all the way.
I didn't say that, I simply pointed out corporate big polluters should pay for their own pollution, twisting that into support for user pays shows how weak that line of attack is.

Tell me bomber, why should a factory worker in Mangere subsidise a millionaires kid from Remuera through Law School?
They don't.

Btw: I think you will find Hone is fucked off at what is happening in regards to MP/National, hence his anger.
Which is the point I've been making about the ructions within the Maori Party from day 1.

I don't think he would appreciate being lumped in with them, as much as you want to be lumped in with the white motherfuckers he was talking about.
Perhaps he should've spoken up about the Emissions Trading Scam then.

 
At 25/11/09 8:20 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're right, user pays all the way.
I didn't say that

You didn't have to, it is a logical extension of your argument.
You use/pollute, you pay.

Tell me bomber, why should a factory worker in Mangere subsidise a millionaires kid from Remuera through Law School?
They don't.

With all due respect bomber, you lie.

Why does the factory worker subsidise the millionaire kid through his taxes, so that the kid gets subsidised Uni fees?

Perhaps he should've spoken up about the Emissions Trading Scam then.

??
And you know he hasn't how?
Just because he hasn't spoken to the media about a topic doesn't mean he hasn't broached the subject in caucus.

 
At 25/11/09 8:24 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You use/pollute you pay.

You want to farm cows?
You pay.

You want to fly around the world?
You pay.

You want to drive a hummer?
You pay.

You want to be a lawyer?
You pay.

Simple really.

 
At 25/11/09 8:49 am, Blogger Bomber said...

No anon.

I disagree with what you are saying and the spin you are trying to make on it.

Let's go through the spin lines:

1: I support user pays, as in "I have leaned to the right on this issue" - nonsense. I believe a product should include all it's cost, including the cost it has caused to the environment. That is a major leap away from your simplistic user pays model.

2: With all due respect, you are an anonymous poster. Law Students are forced into a user pays system because education has been twisted from a public good to a private good. Implying that Factory worker is paying through his hard sweat and toil the entire glide through on the public purse of some rich law student who is laughing all the way is just childish. There are many things that factory worker pays for in his taxes that may not directly benefit him, but benefits the country as a whole, which indirectly benefit him.

3: I know this because he hasn't said tickety boo to the media since his self inflicted injury took him off the field. It's now when he could actually be of use, criticizing the Emission Trading Scam in the media. But he can't because he's in the dog box. Private whispers in Caucus mean nothing at this stage anon and it's pretty desperate trying to use that as an excuse.

 
At 25/11/09 9:14 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I believe a product should include all it's cost, including the cost it has caused to the environment. That is a major leap away from your simplistic user pays model.

I believe a service should include all it's cost, including the cost it has caused to society.

You see bomber, the factory worker pays for the millionaire to go to law school, and then pays again to use his/her services.

The factory worker pays twice, the lawyer is subsidised.
How does that benefit society?

With all due respect, you are an anonymous poster

And that alters my argument how?

There are many things that factory worker pays for in his taxes that may not directly benefit him, but benefits the country as a whole, which indirectly benefit him.

Like subsidised milk?
But how does subsidising a lawyer help a factory worker?
The lawyer will still charge the factory worker to use his/her service.

Subsidised milk for all school children is a lot better for society than subsidised lawyers.

I know this because he hasn't said tickety boo to the media since his self inflicted injury took him off the field. It's now when he could actually be of use, criticizing the Emission Trading Scam in the media.

Riiiight.
So saying something that will get you sacked is better than staying on and attempting to implement change?

Who has more influence bomber, an activist on the sidelines, or an MP in the mix?

Don't get angry at Hone.
He is one man against the system.

You should direct your anger at the Maori elite, who always have had more in common with National than with Labour.

Oh, and one last thing.
If you are going to accuse Hone of being a sellout or an Uncle Tom, at least has the respect to say it to his face.

 
At 25/11/09 10:16 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/3085273/A-costly-exercise-in-hypocrisy

Tells you all you need to know really.

 
At 25/11/09 11:16 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Tell me bomber, why should a factory worker in Mangere subsidise a millionaires kid from Remuera through Law School?
They don't."

Um yes they Bomber. Given that I'm at law school and it only costs me about $4,500 year which a fraction of its cost given that the govnt subsidises the other 80% then taxpayer like the factory worker are footing the bill. Massive props to them tho for suppporting this greatful white mofo.

 
At 25/11/09 1:32 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Um yes they Bomber. Given that I'm at law school and it only costs me about $4,500 year which a fraction of its cost given that the govnt subsidises the other 80% then taxpayer like the factory worker are footing the bill. Massive props to them tho for suppporting this greatful white mofo.
Exactly, it is not the implication anon is trying to imply, a Law Student does pay for part of his education. I reiterate Law Students are forced into a user pays system because education has been twisted from a public good to a private good. Implying that Factory worker is paying through his hard sweat and toil the entire glide through on the public purse of some rich law student who is laughing all the way is just childish. There are many things that factory worker pays for in his taxes that may not directly benefit him, but benefits the country as a whole, which indirectly benefit him.

 
At 25/11/09 1:56 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Dear anonymous poster, here is a list of why you are wrong.

I believe a service should include all it's cost, including the cost it has caused to society.
Well that's neat anon, you go off and stake out that ground rather than trying to include my environmental concerns under your user pays umbrella.

You see bomber, the factory worker pays for the millionaire to go to law school, and then pays again to use his/her services.
Not if the Factory worker is on the minimum wage you are imagining to create more spin on your point. The Factory worker will be eligible for legal aid. I've made the point about why this line of argument is a joke, let me reiterate... Law Students are forced into a user pays system because education has been twisted from a public good to a private good. Implying that Factory worker is paying through his hard sweat and toil the entire glide through on the public purse of some rich law student who is laughing all the way is just childish. There are many things that factory worker pays for in his taxes that may not directly benefit him, but benefits the country as a whole, which indirectly benefit him.

Let's also note the target Anon is using to justify the right wing user pays justification. No one likes Lawyers, yet they are a fundamental cog in the democratic wheel. The backbone of our democracy is Law, of course you need lawyers, just like we need scientists or Drs, the Factory Worker is paying for those skill sets as well, along with Firefighters and the Police, and nurses.

The factory worker pays twice, the lawyer is subsidised.
How does that benefit society?

I've answered that above

And that alters my argument how?
Hey you're the one hiding, don't get pissy for me pointing it out.

Like subsidised milk?
How does subsidized milk help him? Milk that doesn't carry the full cost of the pollution doesn't help the Factory Worker at all in the long run as the emissions created by methane are much worse than carbon. Dairy prices are set by overseas demand, if it exceeds what the domestic market is willing to pay the product will shift off seas and we will pay more, pretending to look after our dear Farmer cause they'll look after us doesn't match up with the reality of how that price gets determined.

But how does subsidising a lawyer help a factory worker?
How does subsidising a Dr or a nurse or a etc etc. This is really 101 stuff Anon, you need a much better line of attack than this.

The lawyer will still charge the factory worker to use his/her service.
So will many professions. It's an argument for a fully funded education you are making. Those fees would be much less if the lawyer wasn't paying their student loan off.

Subsidised milk for all school children is a lot better for society than subsidised lawyers.
Well again, I point out the problem of buying milk that is aiding only to increased methane levels. Those children may not have much of an environment to grow big and strong on all that calcium now will they? Anyway, local fruit and vegetables (some grown at the school, helping young people gain a positive relationship with horticulture, could be funded by the Agricultural industry).

Riiiight.
So saying something that will get you sacked is better than staying on and attempting to implement change?

Yes, now is the time to be speaking out against this farce, he can't because he's in the dog box.

Who has more influence bomber, an activist on the sidelines, or an MP in the mix?
What's the point of being in the mix when the result is this abortion anon?

 
At 25/11/09 1:56 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

Don't get angry at Hone.
He is one man against the system.

I'm not angry at him, I made a very funny comment that Hone is now helping the white mofos rape and pillage the land. That's funny anon, and I have been pointing out since the Hone fight began that this was a symptom of a much deeper malaise within the philosophy of the Maori Party, and have given Hone a lot of support.

You should direct your anger at the Maori elite, who always have had more in common with National than with Labour.
Yes, the Maori Party rolled over very quick for them didn't they?

Oh, and one last thing.
If you are going to accuse Hone of being a sellout or an Uncle Tom, at least has the respect to say it to his face.

Oh cry me a river! I've had plenty of supportive things to say about Hone but when there's a point to be made, I'll make it. I'm still a fan, but this emission trading scam is a farce, and he's better than this.

 
At 25/11/09 3:37 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That's funny anon, and I have been pointing out since the Hone fight began that this was a symptom of a much deeper malaise within the philosophy of the Maori Party, and have given Hone a lot of support."

Why would you give some guilty of hypocrisy and betraying the poor of this race support?

 
At 25/11/09 3:48 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

(sigh) Annnnnnnnnnd, I've been critical of him as well.

 
At 25/11/09 5:05 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Looking at Hone objectively he is pretty much is an Uncle Tom. Of course he mouths off about white mofos raping the land of his ancestors but that's all he does. When push comes to shove he'll enrich those same rich white mofos from the pockets of poor Maori.

Actions speak louder than words Bomber.

 
At 25/11/09 11:56 pm, Blogger Idiot/Savant said...

The very brilliant Idiot/Savant notes that this scam is being rammed through under a ANOTHER misuse of urgency

Well, you could interpret my comment of "They have a case for urgency here" in that way - but it would be the exact opposite of both what I was trying to say and its clear meaning.

The abuse I was referring to is that described in the second paragraph: keeping the names of bills in the urgency motion secret.

 
At 26/11/09 7:46 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Heh.

By not publishing my post bomber, you acknowledge that you can't argue my points, and instead are only capable of suppression.

Brave anonymous poster 1
Tough guy Martyn 0

Too fucking easy.

Btw: When you lose an argument off the internet, do you get in a huff and walk out on the person.

I bet you do.

Heh.

 
At 26/11/09 8:06 am, Blogger Bomber said...

LMAO - Heh (sounds like a croak from a smoker) I published this one to let people know the tone of what you are really like, there's a point when arguing with a troll who has always been a Troll on this site like you bores even me, (your heh is your giveaway). You had no come back and there's a point of anonymous abuse that is actually pointless. Someone without even the guts to put their name to a post don't count and Trolls count even less. I've answered your issues above and have shown how wrong you're line of debate is, pointless abuse beyond that is tedious brave anonymous poster.

Your point about the factory worker and the lawyer is pointless.

Your attempt to pretend I'm right wing and into user pays is pointless.

Your defense of big polluters is telling.

Your defense of Hone is funny.

I bet you do storm out when you've read this.

Heh.

I said good day sir.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home