U.S. Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis
The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, American officials said Friday.
And they wonder why their reputation is mud in the Middle East...
It's been ten days since Israel began its collective punishment of Lebanon for the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hizbollah. Over those ten days, Lebanon's infrastructure - its roads, ports, airport, electricity generators, and a fair amount of Lebanon itself - have been destroyed. Over three hundred Lebanese civilians have been killed (around ten times the number of military casualties), and over half a million displaced. Faced with this devastation and mounting death toll, the international community has been clamouring for a ceasefire. But according to US secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, that would be a "false promise":
"An immediate ceasefire without political conditions does not make sense," she said.
Well, it would certainly make sense to the Lebanese civilians Israel is murdering to reestablish its "deterrent power". But since when has the US ever given a flying fuck about them?
What is going on in Lebanon is a war crime. And the sooner it is stopped, the better.
Global Peace and Justice Auckland and the Palestine Human Rights Campaign are holding a protest tomorrow against Israel's bombing of Gaza and Lebanon.
When: Tomorrow (22nd July), 1 pm
Where: Aotea Square.
Update: Meanwhile, if you'd like to do something more concrete than merely expressing outrage, several charities have launched appeals to assist Israel's victims in Lebanon. You can donate through the TEAR Fund by calling 0900 90 777, or visiting their website, or to Caritas by calling 0800 22 10 22 or donating online.
The British government is considering a radical climate change policy: personal carbon trading:
Under the scheme, all UK citizens from the Queen down would be allocated an identical annual carbon allowance, stored as points on an electronic card similar to Air Miles or supermarket loyalty cards.Points would be deducted at point of sale for every purchase of non-renewable energy. People who did not use their full allocation, such as families who do not own a car, would be able to sell their surplus carbon points into a central bank.
High energy users could then buy them - motorists who had used their allocation would still be able to buy petrol, with the carbon points drawn from the bank and the cost added to their fuel bills. To reduce total UK emissions, the overall number of points would shrink each year.
This is simply insane. While cap and trade schemes can be useful policy tools, there's no benefit here that you couldn't get with a simple carbon tax or a business-level emissions trading regime in which the costs are passed on to consumers. Either of those options would be easier, less intrusive, and cheaper, as there would be no requirement for an enormous investment in infrastructure for monitoring and policing.
So why is this insane scheme being advanced? To be cynical, it looks like they have a solution - universal smart cards and transaction monitoring - in search of a problem. How long until personal carbon trading is used to justify Blair's Orwellian ID card scheme...?
The Energy industry held its annual Energy Summit in Wellington this week. I wasn't there - the $3000 price tag seems to have been designed to keep riff-raff like me out - but Ben Thomas has drawn my attention to a piece he did in the NBR (offline) about a presentation by Solid Energy's Don Elder - and thoughtfully emailed me the powerpoints. Solid Energy has modelled the New Zealand economy and greenhouse emissions out to 2100. Here's the NBR's summary:
According to the study, price-based mechanisms such as a carbon tax are unlikely to deliver emissions reductions. A broad-based tax of $25 on each tonne of CO2-equivalent produced would reduce emissions, but would also lower GDP by over 16% - or $12,000 per person in 2100.Exemptions on any carbon source in the economy, such as farm animals, would make meeting reduction targets impossible.
The greatest growth in emissions in this century will be transport related. This presents a more intractable problem for New Zealand than other countries, because a bigger proportion of transport is involved in our GDP, rather than private use.
However, if low-cost technology could be produced which mirrored the emissions reductions of known technologies, but across all sectors, emissions targets would be met with minimal effects on GDP.
A couple of comments on this. Firstly, the framing of "climate change policy would lower GDP" is (typically) misleading; what they are talking about is simply a marginally lower growth rate, which naturally leads to a large difference with the "business as usual" scenario if compounded over a long period of time. Even with a $25 carbon tax, the model still predicts that New Zealanders in 2100 will be almost twice as rich as they are today. They'll be less rich then if they'd done nothing - but on the plus side, will be less likely to suffer from severe drought and flooding, or interesting tropical diseases. This being simply a cost-analysis though, designed to select between different policies, those benefits of climate change policy are easily forgotten.
Secondly, to turn the weapon of the enemy against him: that $12,000 in 2100 is worth about $125 today (assuming a 5% discount rate; typically higher rates are used either to justify business investment, or to justify ignoring the long-term costs of climate change).
Thirdly, the conclusions drawn are somewhat influenced by the chosen endpoint of 2100. A "low-cost technology" path results in higher growth than a strong carbon tax, but doesn't result in lower emissions until around 2065 (it isn't even noticeably better than business as usual until after 2025 or so). But one of the absolutely solid conclusions of the IPCC is that the earlier we make emissions reductions, the more likely we are to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Avoiding real action in favour of waiting 20 years for a technological miracle seems then to be a foolish strategy.
Fourthly, to build on that point: it is absolutely clear from Solid Energy's model that a strong carbon tax will have a significant effect on emissions, while having a negligible effect on economic growth over the next 50 years. Given that that 50-year period is absolutely crucial, this suggests that we should be pursuing a carbon tax, combined with other measures to equalise carbon costs across the economy. The sorts of measures suggested in the Greens' Turn Down The Heat package, in other words.
Moving on to policy conclusions, Elder wants a technology-based policy, and is hot for us to join the AP6 coal-club - both unsurprising, as he is a coal executive. His primary reason is that price-based measures are unlikely to stimulate the necessary investment in R&D, and that
Emissions trading will help get technologies “off the shelf” - it can not get new technologies “onto the shelf”
But demanding that such technologies be developed locally seems to be setting the policy bar far too high. The size of our economy and our relative isolation has meant that New Zealand has always been a "technology taker" rather than a technology leader. Given this, encouraging the rapid and vigorous uptake of overseas developed carbon-reduction technologies - getting it "off the shelf" - would seem to be exactly what we need to do.
As for the AP6, I don't think even its members regard it as anything other than a PR-stunt designed to mask their inaction on climate change. And while the parties are committed to sharing and developing carbon-reduction technology, they also have an obligation to do so under the UNFCCC (to which all are parties). So its unclear exactly what if anything this would gain us, other than positioning us firmly in the camp of those who want to do nothing about climate change.
Despite this, Elder has a couple of good points. Firstly, the government needs to dramatically increase its investment in research on reducing agricultural emissions. These are an unusually large part of our emissions profile, and because we're unique among Annex I countries in having such a large proportion of methane, no-one else is seriously looking at it. Investing in this area directly benefits New Zealand, and any resulting technology will have a worldwide market. Despite this, the government's response always seems to be "next year". Secondly, the government needs to do more to encourage the uptake of clean technologies, by accelerated depreciation rates or tax credits. The Projects Mechanism provided some incentive (and helped kick-start wind-generation in New Zealand), but it was effort to apply for credits, and is currently on hold. We need a better and easier way to encourage this, otherwise we're going to end up paying for past dirty investment for a long time to come.
In a press release, National's Nick Smith criticises the government's climate change policies, saying
"New Zealand's greenhouse gas emissions are growing at four times the rate of Australia and three times the rate of the United States, but still Labour has no policy."They have dropped the carbon tax, the fart tax, the incentives for clean energy and the negotiated greenhouse agreements.
"It is an embarrassment that the only initiative on climate change this year is a gumboot, gifted to mayors and councillors with the words 'Are you thinking about climate change?'."
All of this is true (well, most of it; according to the UNFCCC's Key GHG Data compilation, our gross emissions have actually grown slightly less than Australia's since 1990), but it immediately begs the question: what's National's alternative?
Oh, that's right: sticking their head in the sand.
While the government's position is as pathetic as their one on foreign aid, National's outright denialism and opposition to the very policies whose demise it is now supposedly lamenting leaves it with simply no credibility on this issue.
A piece in yesterday's Dominion-Post (offline) quoted a US official as saying
The president likes Helen Clark
I just hope he doesn't "like" her in the same way he likes Angela Merkel...
The Environment Court has approved two wind farms in Hawke's Bay. The first, Hawke's Bay Wind Farms' Maungaharuru site, would have 75 turbines generating 225 MW. The second, at Titiokura, would initially be 48 MW, but has already been granted resource consents for a further 111 MW (though the expansion has also been appealed to the Environment Court). Each of these farms is larger than any in New Zealand at the moment (hell, Maungaharuru is larger than all of them put together), and together they would save around 571,000 tons of CO2.
The interesting part will be construction. With two large wind farms being built in Hawke's Bay, and hopefully Project Westwind near Wellington as well, it will be a race to see which one is up and generating first...
Also in the pipeline, Meridian has started consulting on its proposed Lammermoor wind farm in Central Otago. If this goes ahead, it will initially be around 150 MW, but will expand to over 600 MW, making it New Zealand's third largest power station overall. But it might not be plain sailing; this weeks' Listener has a piece (preview here) on local opposition to the project, and I can't really blame them. Central Otago's landscape could be considered pretty, and I can understand that some might not think turbines will be the best addition to the landscape. But that's what the RMA process is supposed to be about - local communities deciding for themselves what value they attach to things like landscapes and silence, and approving or refusing projects accordingly.
Yesterday, parliament debated the Justices of the Peace Amendment Bill. It's a boring bill, designed to tweak the rules around JPs and ensure better training - but Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples livened it up with this political hand-grenade:
The political link between the Treaty and its guarantees of equity; including the possibility of equal status with other New Zealanders in article three; is as relevant to the training of Justices of the Peace as it is in any other sector of policy.And it here that we believe the inclusion of an allegiance, albeit a voluntary one, to Te Tiriti o Waitangi will be very helpful in strengthening the capability of Justices of the Peace to be responsive to the unique constitutional context of Aotearoa.
The Maori Party is introducing a Supplementary Order Paper to be discussed with the Oaths Modernisation Bill when it next comes before this House. The amendments would be introduced to include Te Tiriti o Waitangi in all oaths and affirmations.
(Emphasis added)
I support this plan. While purely symbolic - oaths and affirmations of office are not AFAIK enforceable in the courts - the symbolism is powerful and positive. The Treaty is our founding document, the fundamental compact on which our government and society is based, and regardless of whether it is legally enforceable or not, that fact should be recognised.
That's the only way of seeing the Nat's plan to brand themselves as cool to appeal to the youth vote. Are they really so desperate that they're lifting their strategies from FaceLift now? Still, it could be worse - they could be trying to market themselves as "sexy" by getting a special nude Gerry Brownlee sealed section into the pages of Cleo...
Here's a suggestion for National: rather then trying this sort of desperate media campaign to brand themselves, they could try actually changing their policies so that they are more likely to appeal to young and woman voters. You know, by removing the cruelty, viciousness, bigotry, and concern only with rich old white men that currently seems to define them. Possibly they could also treat their female MPs with a little more respect as well, rather than regarding them as fit only for the backbenches, the kitchen, and (by extension) the pages of Women's Weekly. But I guess that avoiding having to make real changes, to the possible detriment of the interests of those rich old white men, is precisely the point...
Looking at the Order Paper, I see that Metiria Turei's Misuse of Drugs (Medicinal Cannabis) Amendment Bill has been delayed until November 15th. This means there will only be three bills ready for their first reading next Wednesday, which in turn means that there could be a ballot tomorrow to draw a fourth. I'll post details as I receive them.
Update: There will be no ballot, as any new bill would not be available for its first reading next wednesday.
Wayne Mapp's Employment Relations (Probationary Employment) Amendment Bill is slowly working its way through the select committee process, and meanwhile opposition is growing. The EPMU's 90-day notice period for action against the bill expires tomorrow, and the pan-union Work Rights, our right! campaign is marking the date by holding a rally outside Parliament, starting at 12:30. If you oppose the return of workplace feudalism and employers having absolute and arbitrary power over their workers, then show up and let the politicians know about it.
Fundamentalist Christian group Family Integrity has produced a smacking how-to guide, which recommends that parents subject their children to prolonged (10 - 15 minute) beatings to drive out "sinful manifestations". This can only be described as child abuse, and if the current law allows it, then that would seem to be an excellent reason for repeal.
Via Political Animal, US Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker on how the US is doing in Iraq:
The question was, do I think we're winning in Iraq?....[Long silence, sound of papers shuffling.]
I, y’know....
[Another silence.]
I think I would answer that by telling you I don’t think we’re losing.
Which, in the face of news like this, makes you wonder what they think "losing" would look like.
The Herald's Brian Rudman responds to the sentencing of Tim Selwyn with a call for people to speak up and scrap the old sedition law:
The jailing of Tim Selwyn for sedition should send a shiver up the spine of anyone whose business is words and ideas. And in a free and open democracy, that's every one of us.That the police, off their own bat, can prosecute a pamphleteer for sedition, persuading a jury that the Government was in danger of being overthrown unlawfully as a result of his scribblings, drags us into the same class as "guided" democracies such as Singapore.
Rudman points out that statements as seditious as Selwyn's were made on an almost daily basis during recent periods of civil protest (the 60's, the Maori sovereignty movement, the Springbok Tour, nuclear-ship visits, gay rights, women's rights) - and yet none resulted in prosecution, much less the unalwful overthrow of the government. Reviving the law then seems both totally unjustified, and a threat to the greatly enhanced freedom of speech we have won since the 60's. If they could manage without it during the height of the Springbok Tour ("the closest [modern] New Zealand has come to civil war"), then surely we can manage without it now.
Rudman concludes:
Compared with the sixties, we now live in a golden age of free speech and free expression. Who of us would want to go back? The conviction and jailing of someone for exercising this new openness are chilling reminders of those bad old days. The quicker the sedition law is repealed the better.
Obviously, I agree.
Keith Locke took the government to task about our pathetic levels of foreign aid in Question Time yesterday, which resulted in this patsy exchange:
Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm that the increase in development assistance in the Budget last year—21 percent—gave us, in fact, the highest-ever level of official development assistance in this country’s history?Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: That is indeed true. We have moved from 0.22 percent to 0.27 percent—and, indeed, next year it is due to reach 0.28 percent—of GDP.
Unfortunately for Cullen, it is demonstrably not true (at least, not in the percentage-of-GDP/GNI terms he is discussing it in). Here's a graph of New Zealand's level of official development assistance expressed as a percentage of GNI.
(Source: here [PDF])
Neither is his previous claim that our aid levels are "almost exactly the weighted average for the OECD countries that give aid". According to the OECD [PDF], the "average country effort" for all OECD donors is 0.47 percent of GNI. Our aid levels are therefore not just significantly below the targets we have agreed to meet, but also below the OECD average. But to be fair, Cullen did say "weighted average"; unfortunately he didn't specify how the figures were weighted, and allow us to determine whether it was relevant, or just a way of making the figures look better.
Is it really too much to ask that the government doesn't respond to criticism with outright lies?
