Tuesday, October 24, 2017



Climate change: A lot of trees

Labour and New Zealand First signed their coalition agreement today, and one item caught my eye: "Planting 100 million trees per year in a Billion Trees Planting Programme." That is a lot of trees. Its also potentially a huge step towards meeting our climate change targets.

At the moment New Zealand plants about 40,000 hectares of trees a year, mostly as replanting of existing plantations. 100 million trees is about 100,000 hectares (assuming a stocking rate of 1,000 trees per hectare; actual numbers vary from 600 to 1,400). As that graph shows, its going to mean a huge increase in the propagation industry, to a level even higher than the mid-90's peak. Its in theory doable, but difficult, and may take a number of years to ramp up.

As for the payoff, once established, a hectare of pine aborbs 25 tons of CO2 a year, every year, for 40 or 50 years. A years planting will soak up 2.5 million tons of CO2 every year. And the government plans to do that for a decade. Which is going to make a huge difference to our emissions profile in the long term.

And we're going to need it. Because all those trees planted in the mid-90's are starting to be cut down. Which means we're going to face a huge peak in our emissions over the next decade. A mass tree-planting programme will smooth that peak, and help stabilise things, buying us a bit of time. But fundamentally, if we are to solve this, we need to cut emissions (including the sacred cow of agricultural emissions), rather than just planting trees.

The same old racist National Party

Over the weekend the media tried to talk up coalition divisions over the proposed Kermadec ocean sanctuary. The Greens supposedly wanted it, but NZ First had killed it over the lack of iwi consultation, but it was still on if iwi agreed. Looking at these stories, its pretty clear that there's not much "disagreement" at all: the Greens and NZ First both agree that they need to reach agreement with iwi before the sanctuary can happen. Despite this, National thinks it is the perfect issue to try and divide them on with a member's bill:

While some media have reported the plan is already a casualty of Labour's coalition agreement with New Zealand First, outgoing environment minister Nick Smith said National would consider introducing a member's bill to get the sanctuary over the line.

The Green Party is adamant the sanctuary should be established, and, because National holds 56 seats in Parliament, only the Greens' support is needed to pass the legislation.

Dr Smith said the Greens would have to support the bill if it was drawn from the ballot, or risk alienating their support base.


Hardly. Because in addition to supporting the environment, the Green Party and its members overwhelmingly support the Treaty of Waitangi and the settlement process. Legislating unilaterally to effectively overturn a Treaty settlement isn't compatible with that, and I think Green supporters would be quite comfortable with their MPs voting down such a bill if it didn't contain appropriate and approved clauses protecting iwi rights.

What this does show us is that this is the same old National Party which advocated for unilateral theft of the foreshore and seabed in 2003, which voted for Don Brash as leader, and ran on a platform of outright racial hatred in 2005. A party which thinks that Maori don't matter, that their views can be ignored, that they have no rights. And that the government can break its word to them whenever it is convenient or advantageous.

I'm glad that that racist party was constrained by the Maori Party when it was in government. And I'm glad they're out of government now.

Friday, October 20, 2017



New Fisk

Vladimir Putin is positioning himself as the main player in the Middle East

A mistake

On October 1st, Catalans marched to the ballot boxes in the face of Spanish police batons, and voted loudly and clearly for independence. This then, there's been an esclating crisis as Spain has lost its shit over people peacefully and democraticly choosing for themselves what they want to do. The Catalan government has tried to de-escalate this, by suspending its declaration of independence in order to allow for negotiations. The Spanish government has rejected that, instead doubling down on repression by jailing independence leaders for "sedition" (a concept which simply has no place in a democracy). And now, they're threatening to suspend Catalonia's regional autonomy and impose direct rule from Madrid:

The Spanish government is to suspend Catalonia’s autonomy and impose direct rule after the region’s president refused to abandon the push for independence that has triggered Spain’s biggest political crisis for 40 years.

The announcement of the unprecedented measure came after the Catalan president, Carles Puigdemont, threatened a unilateral declaration of independence if the Spanish government did not agree to talks on the issue.

In a statement on Thursday morning, the Spanish government said Puigdemont had ignored its calls to drop his independence plans and had once again failed to confirm whether independence had actually been declared.

As a result, it said, article 155 of the Spanish constitution would be invoked to begin the process of suspending the region’s self-rule.


And the response will be pretty obvious: the declaration of independence will be unsuspended (or there'll be a formal parliamentary vote), and the thing Spain sought to prevent will undeniably happen. With the overwhelming support of the Catalan people - because Spain's actions throughout this have been seemingly calculated to drive people away rather than win them over.

As for what happens then, who knows? But Spain clearly thinks it can solve this problem by force, beatings and repression. It can't. Or at least, it can't while still remaining a democracy. Sadly, it looks like Spain's non-Catalans don't really care about that.

Thursday, October 19, 2017



Change

So, nearly four weeks after the election, and two weeks after the results, Winston has chosen Labour and the Greens. While I'm not overjoyed at the result, because Winston, its certainly the better outcome of the hand the voters dealt the parties. And while a government saddled with Winston won't be able to achieve everything we want it to, the involvement of the Greens should both push Labour to the left while being a check on Winston's more odious policies. Meanwhile, there's some solid policy the three parties agree on, like building state houses, raising the minimum wage, and even passing a Zero Carbon Act (where NZ First seems to get off is any actual policy to meet the targets such an Act will set). So, I'm hoping that it will turn out OK. I know the Greens at least will be working constructively to make that happen.

The part of Winston's speech that really stood out and signified his direction was this:

Far too many New Zealanders have come to view today’s capitalism, not as their friend, but as their foe.

And they are not all wrong.

That is why we believe that capitalism must regain its responsible - its human face. That perception has influenced our negotiations.


And he's right. Capitalism is broken. Just look at housing, or poverty, or our shitty, low wage employment market - its just not providing for ordinary people (and that's not even getting into the ways it doesn't work around the environment). Whether it can be fixed or not is an open question, but I'm not going to fault people for trying. And if they manage to do something about the awful poverty (and associated cruelty) we tolerate, then maybe Metiria's martyrdom will have been worth it.

New Fisk

After visiting Hitler’s office in Munich, it’s clear to me that there are still lessons to be learned

British spies are sharing data illegally

For years, British spies have been collecting personal information on innocent UKanians, building huge "bulk personal datasets" of personal information on ordinary UK citizens who they admit are of no intelligence interest. That's bad enough, but it also turns out that they're illegally sharing that unlawfully-gathered information with their "allies":

MI5 and MI6 may be circumventing legal safeguards when they share bulk datasets with foreign intelligence services and commercial partners, a court has been told.

Most of the bulk personal datasets relate to UK citizens who are not of “legitimate intelligence interest”, the investigatory powers tribunal (IPT) heard.

[...]

While GCHQ has said it insists its partners adopt equivalent standards and safeguards when processing bulk data, Jaffey said, neither MI5 nor MI6 have a similar approach. “The effect will be the circumvention of the UK legal regimes,” he added. “Protections will be avoided.”


The information collected includes "internet usage, telephone call logs, websites visited, online file transfers and others". It gets given to researchers at UK universities, UK government agencies, and foreign intelligence agencies. There's no safeguards on the latter, and this information can potentially be used to abduct and torture people, or target them for drone assassination. Either of those uses would of course be completely contrary to UK law, but if they don't check, then the spies can pretend that they're not criminals.

And of course this raises serious questions about whether New Zealand's intelligence agencies have similar datasets and what information they share about New Zealanders (or others). Some of this may be covered by the still-ongoing IGIS inquiries into cooperation with CIA rendition and torture and interceptions in the South Pacific, but neither of those reports seem like they'll be emerging any time soon.

Tuesday, October 17, 2017



Farmers are poisoning Canterbury

Thanks to intensive farming, a quarter of Canterbury's wells are close to exceeding safe nitrate limits:

Increased irrigation in Canterbury is putting newborn babies at increased risk from water contamination, a medical officer of health says.

Canterbury Regional Council figures show that for the ten years to the end of 2016, nitrate levels increased in 23 percent of monitored wells.

So far, high nitrate levels in Canterbury were confined to private wells and none of those serving communities had been found to have dangerously high readings.

However, a quarter of council-monitored wells are coming close to exceeding safe limits.


Babies can die from nitrate poisoning, and at least one has (others may have, but had the deaths misclassified as sudden infant deaths). And that's simply not an acceptable risk. Farming is a clear risk to public health, and its the job of the regional council and the government to regulate it so that it is not. And if this regulation means farmers make less money, then so be it - because it is not acceptable for people to profit by murdering children.

New Fisk

Isis has lost Raqqa with the fighting taking much of the city's history too – where will their fighters head to next?

Spain has political prisoners again

Under Franco's dictatorship, Spain had political prisoners. And now, under the Francoist People's party, it has them again, with two Catalans jailed for sedition for organising peaceful protests for independence:

The leaders of two of the main pro-independence civil society organizations have been sent to prison without bail on sedition charges. A Spanish judge decided to imprison Jordi Sànchez, president of the Catalan National Assembly (ANC), and Jordi Cuixart, president of Òmnium Cultural, for their role in the October 1 referendum. Both of them will already sleep in jail tonight. The same judge also decided to release without passport the chief of the Catalan police, Josep-Lluís Trapero, accused of not having done enough to stop voters from participating in the independence referendum.

The initial investigation against Trapero, Sánchez and Cuixart focused on demonstrations on September 20 and 21, when fourteen high-ranking officials of the Catalan government were arrested and people protested massively, and peacefully, in the streets. But the case was extended to also include events during the October 1 referendum and the alleged “flagrant inaction” of Catalonia’s police corps, the Mossos d’Esquadra, to stop the vote.

Sánchez and Cuixart lead two of the biggest pro-independence organizations in Catalonia, responsible for organizing the massive pro-Yes demonstrations of the last few years. The prosecutor argues that they mobilized people on referendum day, asking citizens to protest in front of polling stations, thus impeding police officers from closing them down.


They could be facing between 4 and 15 years in jail for peacefully advocating for their political views. In a supposed "democracy". But then, democracies don't blockade polling places and beat people for voting either. If this is the sort of state Spain is, then Catalans are entirely sensible to want to leave it.

Monday, October 16, 2017



We should not be involved in this

In 2015, the National government sent New Zealand troops to Iraq. Their role there was to train the Iraqi army so it could be used to fight "terrorists". Now, the army we helped train is being used to invade Kurdistan:

Iraqi forces were reported to be advancing on Kirkuk after prime minister of Iraq, Haidar al-Abadi, ordered his army to “impose security” on the oil-rich Kurdish city.

Kurdish and Iraqi officials reported that forces began moving at midnight on Sunday towards oil fields and an important air base held by Kurdish forces near the city.

The governor of Kirkuk, Najmaldin Karim, urged the public to come out onto the streets and voiced his confidence that Peshmerga forces would be able to protect the city. “We saw some of the young people who expressed their readiness to help their Peshmerga brothers to defend the land,” he told Rudaw, a Kurdish media network.


The Kurds voted democraticly for independence last month. But rather than negotiate a peaceful divorce, it looks like rump Iraq is going to suppress them with military force - just like Saddam did. And that suppression (the smashing of cities, the murder of civilians) is going to be done by troops trained by kiwis.

This is not something we should be supporting. New Zealand should withdraw its troops from Iraq immediately.

Did Britain manipulate Australia's dismissal?

The British government and its monarch have always denied any responsibility for the 1975 dismissal of an elected government by an unelected governor-general. But it appears they were lying:

Representatives of the British government flew to Australia in the lead-up to the 1975 dismissal of the Whitlam government to meet with the then governor-general, casting further doubt on the accepted narrative that London officials did not play an active role in Australia's most significant constitutional crisis.

Historian Jenny Hocking discovered files in the British archives showing Sir Michael Palliser, the newly appointed permanent under-secretary of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, arrived in Canberra a month before the dismissal and held a joint meeting with Sir John Kerr and the British High Commissioner, Sir Morrice James, just as the Senate was blocking supply.

Sir Michael later reported back to London that Sir John "could be relied upon".


There's an extremely strong suggestion that the British government were interfering in Australian politics and the 1975 election. And combined with their continued secrecy over Kerr's communications with the queen - which are absurdly considered to be private, rather than official communications - it makes them look guilty as hell.

Of course, the easiest way to prevent a foreign monarch from interfering in Australian politics ever again is for Australia to become a republic. Fortunately, that is now looking likely. The question is whether New Zealand will do the same.

Friday, October 13, 2017



New Fisk

We will soon find out what 'unity' really means for the Palestinians
Can Christians stay in the Middle East now that they are being persecuted for their ancient religion?
Clare Hollingworth: Our last interview with the woman who broke WW2

Even the IMF thinks we should tax the rich more

The International Monetary Fund is not what you'd call a left-wing organisation. Instead, they've been one of the major forces pushing NeoLiberalism on the world for the past 40 years. But even they have been forced to admit that we need higher taxes on the rich:

Higher income tax rates for the rich would help reduce inequality without having an adverse impact on growth, the International Monetary Fund has said.

The Washington-based IMF used its influential half-yearly fiscal monitor to demolish the argument that economic growth would suffer if governments in advanced Western countries forced the top 1% of earners to pay more tax.

The IMF said tax theory suggested there should be “significantly higher” tax rates for those on higher incomes but the argument against doing so was that hitting the rich would be bad for growth.

But the influential global institution said: “Empirical results do not support this argument, at least for levels of progressivity that are not excessive.” The IMF added that different types of wealth taxes might also be considered.


...such as land taxes and capital gains taxes. Both things chickenshit Labour has ruled out.

With this coming from the IMF, you'd think the right would be forced to accept reality. They won't, of course; instead they'll just keep parroting the same zombie economics they always have. Because they're not interested in reality or in what's good for everyone, but in serving the interests of the greedy ultrarich who bankroll them.

Wednesday, October 11, 2017



The world we live in

How scary is the Trump presidency? Scary enough that his senior officials have actually discussed physicly restraining him if he tries to nuke anyone:

New York Magazine contributing editor Gabriel Sherman on Tuesday reported on a remarkable conversation he had with a senior Republican official, who described conversations Donald Trump’s chief of staff Gen. John Kelly and defense secretary James Mattis have had about “physically [restraining] the president” in the event he “[lunges] for the nuclear football.”

Sherman was discussing the growing concern in the West Wing over Trump’s temperament, particularly as the president continues to escalate feuds with prominent Republicans like Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) while simultaneously setting the United States “on the path to World War III.”

“A conversation I had with a very prominent Republican today, who literally was saying that they imagine Gen. Kelly and Secretary Mattis have had conversations that if Trump lunged for the nuclear football, what would they do?” Sherman told NBC’s Chris Hayes. “Would they tackle him? I mean literally, physically restrain him from putting the country at perilous risk.”

“That is the kind of situation we’re in,” Sherman added.


This is of course unconstitutional - as a (thinly-disguised) elected monarch, the president has the exclusive right to use nuclear weapons, just as the absolute monarchs the US rebelled against had the exclusive right to wage war. But when it comes to saving the lives of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions or even billions of people, I'll take unconstitutional any day.

Still, it does invite the question: if his Cabinet really think Trump is that dangerous, why haven't they lawfully removed him under the 25th amendment yet?

Signed and suspended

Last weekend Catalans chose democracy over fascism, marching to the ballot boxes to vote for independence in the face of Spanish truncheons and rubber bullets. While Spanish violence succeeded in keeping the turnout to only 43% (55% if the ballots they stole are considered), support for an independent republic was so overwhelming that it would have been a majority even at the turnout levels of a normal Catalan election.

Since then, Spain has upped its campaign of violence, threatening to suspend Catalonia's regional autonomy and torture and murder its president (just as they did to one of his predecessors). Meanwhile, actual fascists have been marching in Spain's streets demanding Catalonia be suppressed. Calls by the international community for the Spanish government to sit down and negotiate a peaceful and democratic way forward have been ignored.

Today, Catalan President Carles Puigdemont finally addressed the Catalan parliament. As expected, he declared independence - and also called for the declaration to be suspended for a few weeks to allow time for negotiations. Its a reasonable approach: the referendum (and previous elections) provide a clear mandate, but the situation needs to be de-escalated. The EU seems to finally be getting involved, and this gives them time to convince Spain to accept reality: that these issues must be resolved democraticly, as in Scotland, and that if Spanish law prevents that, it is Spanish law which needs to change. The question is whether the Spanish government will recognise that, or whether it thinks Catalans will love them if they are beaten harder.

Tuesday, October 10, 2017



10/10: World Day Against the Death Penalty

WorldDay2017
Today, October 10, is the world day against the death penalty. Out of 195 UN member states, 85 still permit capital punishment. Today is the day we work to change that.

This year's theme is poverty. Unequal justice mans the death penalty is overwhelmingly applied to poor people, either because they cannot afford a proper legal defence or as a result of direct socioeconomic discrimination. This compounds the inherent injustice of state execution.

The good news is that we are slowly winning. Two more countries abolished the death penalty this year: Mongolia and Gambia. The civilised world is gradually growing. Sadly, the USA will probably be one of the last countries to join it.

A dismal failure

Back in 2013 the government and the Auckland Council signed the Auckland Housing Accord. The accord was supposed to fix the Auckland housing market by building an extra 40,000 houses. A huge chunk of those houses were supposed to be "affordable" (for Auckland, which is still insanely unaffordable for real people). So how did it do? It turns out that like everything else National does, it was a dismal failure:

New figures show 98 free-market affordable homes have been built under the government's Auckland Housing Accord.

The chair of Auckland Council planning committee, councillor Chris Darby, has called the Accord a "dismal failure" in addressing affordability.

[...]

An analysis by Auckland Council sets out a detailed picture of what the government's SHA legislation has delivered.

Council data shows 3157 homes were completed in SHAs by the end of June, when monitoring ended.


So, it built less than 10% of the houses promised, and only a handful of "affordable" ones - most of which were one-bedroom shoebox apartments. Meanwhile, developers exploited the special housing areas to build unaffordable palazzos, or just flicked the land on to another landbanker without building anything. But then, the policy was never about building houses, let alone "affordable" ones - it was about generating headlines saying that that would happen. And on that level, National probably considers it a success. As for people in Auckland who still can't find a house to live in, national does not and never has cared about them.

Monday, October 09, 2017



A weird way to do electoral reform

When New Zealanders voted for electoral reform in 1993, we knew exactly what we were voting for. A royal commission had looked at the alternatives. An initial referendum had narrowed the choice down to MMP. And Parliament had already passed the law enabling the new electoral system to come into force if people voted for change, so we knew exactly how many MP's we'd be getting and the rough shape of electoral boundaries.

They do things differently in Canada. In 2017, voters in British Colombia elected (under FPP) an NDP-Green coalition government. That government has just announced a referendum on proportional representation, the third in the province's history. But while they've decided everything about the referendum - a postal vote, with 50%-plus-one required for success, and no turnout requirement, they haven't actually decided what form of proportional representation they'll be voting on. The actual referendum question will be decided later, by regulation. And the referendum won't be binding - instead, if it passes, the legislation will have to be passed (and new electoral boundaries decided) before the next election.

This isn't the first time British Colombia has been here. In 2005 and 2009 they voted on adopting STV. In 2005 it won a majority, but the government had strapped the chicken by requiring 60% support, ensuring the continuation of first-past-the-post. In 2009, STV failed, largely because the lack of information of electoral boundaries allowed real fears about representation of rural areas (which would have required multi-member districts larger than some countries). While the current British Colombia government apparently favours MMP - they've been paying attention to how it works in New Zealand - failing to nail down the details of the system could leave them with the same result.

This stinks

In the wake of the Christchurch earthquakes, the government red-zoned a huge swathe of the city and used coercive buyouts to depopulate and demolish it on "safety" grounds. Now, having snapped up those properties cheaply due to the red-zoning, causing enormous losses to the victims, it now plans to re-offer them for residential development at a profit:

New housing has been confirmed as a possibility for Christchurch's red zoned river corridor, after close to 7000 households were cleared off it following the earthquakes.

Crown-council agency Regenerate Christchurch on Friday included residential development on five out of 10 land use options it announced for the 602 hectares.

Regenerate chief executive Ivan Iafeta said their goal was to find out how to make "the biggest contribution to Christchurch and New Zealand's future".


As one former red-zone resident points out, this is unfair. It looks like they've been cleared away for government profit. If the government had acquired this land under the Public Works Act, the former residents would have a right to buy it back. The same should apply to former red zone residents if their land has been deemed safe enough for people to live on.