Join! it's $20

How would you define and solve our environmental issues

Okay. So you don't like the idea of our polluter pays policy. How would define and solve our environmental issues?

Showing 10 reactions

  • fff fff
    commented 2017-09-19 14:29:31 +1200
    kill yourself
  • Kill Cats
    commented 2017-09-19 14:14:10 +1200
    by eating dougles
  • Daniel Cleaver
    commented 2017-08-05 09:31:26 +1200
    Regulate pollution. Taxation is just damage control and hits the little guy more than the corporations. Also water belongs to us all so all water exports should be government owned and referendum and iwi sanctioned as to how much and who we sell to.
  • Tom Sainsbury
    commented 2017-01-23 14:17:48 +1300
    I am concerned that the policy you propose will be too complicated to administer. It is also too complicated to explain and win voters. I believe in the KISS principal. Keep it simple stupid.

    So, why don’t you suggest that unemployment benefits will be cut 10% however if you sign into an environmental project then you will get 10% more. Then you get people who are unemployed working on projects like cleaning waterways, killing possums and even feral cats(Gareth should like that).

    Get rid of the current jury system. It is hugely expensive to run,gives poor results, half the jurors don’t want to be there and half shouldn’t. Introduce a 3 judge system where there are two legal judges and a lay judge. They can ask questions,the right to silence goes and more realistic sentencing comes in(the average of the judges). The money saved could be used for prisoner reform.

    To get people voting you need policies that are easily understood and appeal to voters. I believe the tax and environmental policies released so far do not achieve that objective.
  • Andrew Hughes-Games
    commented 2017-01-21 22:30:08 +1300
    I don’t think 10% no take is enough. How much are the scientists saying is necessary in order to protect our oceans. Find out the consensus amount and make that the amount without compromises or your efforts are futile.
  • Emlyn Francis
    commented 2017-01-20 16:40:35 +1300
    I am curious to hear how you expect existing farmers who have established businesses under existing legislation and overwhelmingly are committed to leaving our land in a better state than we found it while endeavouring to make a profit and educate our kids to can continue to do so under your policy.

    Surely a better approach would be to invest in science to establish solutions to the issues we currently face. We have heard the niche/ high value story before but developing that in itself requires capital we don’t have.

    While tourism is certainly booming it is dependent largely on the ability of overseas people to be able to afford it and that continuing to be the case is not a given. NZ is also really lacking in infrastructure to cope with significantly more tourists than we get already and if numbers keep increasing the clean green outdoors may be swamped with a plethora of tourist busses squabbling to find a park so the people aboard can take a photo of tekapo or the like
  • G. Graham
    commented 2017-01-20 14:45:13 +1300
    It is the policy of the One Worlders to use the environment against the West and this has resulted in our farmers reaching their highest suicidal rate in history. Enough is enough. Simply by chance while on holiday I’ve sat beside an environmental scientist on 2 separate occasions, both have told me that the figures they produce are not the figures released to the public. We are being conned at the expense of lives.

    Global warming has been tried in 2 separate Supreme Courts, one in New Mexico the other I forget and in both cases it was found, “The evidence produced failed to confirm Global Warming but the gasses Global Warming condemned were proven to be good for the environment”. As yet no Government has produced any evidence to overturn the evidence produced at these Supreme Courts.

    Your Party is suggesting only the farmers pay for the result of “alleged” pollution, yet townies also reap the profit to the country reaped from farming. I am a townie that has done my own research, not another puppet but one who can think independently.
  • Ross Brown
    commented 2017-01-20 14:12:01 +1300
    Gareth – you clearly don’t understand the interconnectedness of the growth problem. There is NO growth policy that will not deplete resources when you view the world as one system. Policies like this which hint at outsourcing the pollution can be called equally dumb. The “we need to add more value” argument is poorly thought through – that extra value needs to be paid for by someone somewhere … who ultimately needs faster resource depletion to do so to generate more “surplus” to afford the higher value. I can see the frustration of farmers when they see policies such as this – completely blind urbanites wanting a supply of lattes and food & endless travel and consumption while believing it can be magically created by purchase orders.

    In summary, your policy shows a belief that money is the basis of the economy, when it is ENERGY. All growth must be driven by higher/faster energy consumption.

    Eg Tourism spending represents the spending of a surplus within the system … A surplus generated ultimately through resource depletion. It relies on fossil fuel travel, the ongoing maintenance of roads & infrastructure etc

    - another example always given is “weightless” exports like gaming …. but this is just really advertising clicks … paid for ultimately by … you guessed it … resource depletion.

    If the world can’t live sustainably now, growing overall consumption will never lead to greater sustainability. Look up carrying capacities…

    The choice is simple; we crash the economy OR we crash the environment.

    NZ should be using the remaining time while there is a functioning world economy to move to a self sufficient sustainable basis – it is the ONLY possible future.

    - disestablish city living – cities are too energy intensive and won’t survive the end of Oil

    - move to local food and economies and localised energy production

    - learn the skills of yesteryear; growing own food, horse power etc

    - plant a lot of trees

    ie prepare for the end of Oil and all this entails

    Clearly that wont happen, or be a vote winner because everyone is under the belief there will always be MORE. Your policy says so.
  • Mark Harvey
    commented 2017-01-20 12:16:14 +1300
    While the sentiment of this is something I generally agree with, I don’t see what this does to go beyond the Greens on this at all to be honest. They’ve even called for a tourist levy too already. I also don’t think that this policy is ambitious enough at all on the whole. Even before this generation we have majorly damaged our natural environment – we should aim back to 1860 levels if anything. Where is tangatawhenua in relation to all of this too? They need to be involved here as much of the whenua is there’s also. Plus, this is way too foggy on the RMA. It does not appear to at all prevent developers from going ahead and breaching it, especially if their fines are low and they can make giant profits from their developments (even considering the tax policy of your party). Also, where are all the other potential politicians in this party who have expertise that can ensure that these policies (and the others) go ahead (should this party supposedly get enough votes)? We are only hearing of Gareth in the public eye, even in this policy. Is this party consulting with a range of experts beyond Gareth on these issues? It so far doesn’t appear so. Plus on another note, why start this party when it’s sentiments like this policy area are so far very similar to the Greens, who already can have an influence? I don’t see the point in this as it could split the vote, thus further preventing these policies from going ahead. Why not actually contribute to policies in parties like the Green party’s. (Mind you for some years it seems Gareth has had a bias against the Greens – why take on policies plans that they are already aiming for in this case?) I am not convinced but I wish you well and hope this party does not cause the continuation of the status quo environmentally toxic National government.
  • Jane Banfield
    commented 2017-01-20 11:40:30 +1300
    A. I’d amend corporate legislation so Directors are responsible to all Stakeholders including employees, local.communities and the natural world. This type of stakeholder legislation has been introduced in Penn state and other places -in part in places like Germany. It puts the responsibility back on the company – a way of ensuring a responsible proactive environmental approach or they can be taken to court by any number of individuals , protective NGOS or state bodies.

    B. I’d widen the legal status now enjoyed by the Whanganui river to the whole land and marine environment of NZ.

    C. I’d publicise our status as residents of NZ as a part of the ecosystem of the sacred natural world and that the environment is not a ‘resource’. We are an integral part of the worlds of Papatuanuku and Tangaroa.

    D. I’d get rid of the concept of people as ‘consumers’ by making fun of the concept, and ensuring it is left in the past as part of an unworkable neo-liberal approach which is totally flawed. I’d ensure that all we who live in NZ recognize that we are unique caring thoughtful individuals first (get The Values Project involved if necessary). Ie a strengths-based approach – we are better than portrayed by the media and advertising industry and care about the natural world and want to restore the biosphere and are capable of doing so.