No Minister

Archive for the ‘Green party’ Category

Learning from other’s mistakes

with 13 comments

I’m not talking about Labour and certainly not the NZ Greens. They’re committed to a path of insanity when it comes to renewable energy, as they are most other things in our society.

No, I’m looking at National and ACT. I understand that polling shows that Jacinda still has quite a grip on the female vote in this country, and that polling and focus groups show the same cohort as being the determining factor on things like wearing face diapers to ward off the dreaded Chinese Lung Rot – and saving the planet! I also get that this is backed by a wall of almost monolithic MSM propaganda 24/7.

But we surely now have enough examples from “leaders” in renewable energy around the world who have started to run into big problems with both the unreliability of these new power sources and the increase in power costs associated with them, as well as the failure to reduce CO2 emissions, (which is what this was supposed to be all about in the first place) to be able to argue back on the basis of sheer, basic, in-your-face reality and not join the insanity.

Here’s the latest victim of that reality, South Africans left in the dark after grid collapse:

South Africans are struggling in the dark to cope with increased power cuts that have hit households and businesses across the country.

The rolling power cuts have been experienced for years but this week the country’s state-owned power utility Eskom extended them so that some residents and businesses have gone without power for more than 9 hours a day.

Eskom has officially said that the blackouts are not a temporary situation and they estimate that it will take “years” to stabilise the power grid. The unstated assumption is that they can manage this feat at all in the face of the path their government has followed on trying to reduce CO2 emissions by building wind farms and closing some of their old coal-fired plants and not spending money on repairs and maintenance of the others because they anticipated their eventual closure.

Does this sound familiar? It should given that we’ve seen the exact same thing happening in Australia, Europe (especially Germany), Texas, and California:

  • Power blackouts (both rolling and sudden)
  • Massive increases in electricity costs
  • Little to no impact on reducing CO2 emissions

The biggest joke here is that we may be about to commit the same suicidal actions just as the rest of the world begins to turn away from it, despite all their hot air on the subject of Global Warming, because those energy realities are starting to bite:

World leaders at the Group of 7 summit in Germany signaled they will turn back to fossil fuels despite their commitments to a green energy transition thanks to the ongoing energy crisis.

“The G7 leaders are pretending that nothing has happened to the green agenda,” Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Forum, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “In reality, if you look at individual member states… it’s quite obvious that the green agenda will be sunk.

German Economy Minister Robert Habeck, a member of the Green Party, announced last week that the government was instituting a surge in the use of coal-powered plants.

Given the steady increase in German reliance on natural gas from Russia over the last few years, their €500 billion Energiewende project increasingly looked like a farce anyway, but it’s taken the Ukranian war to make that obvious.

Habeck is not the only such Green who is waking up, with other Euro Greens beginning to not only get the message that their favoured Renewables are actually better called the Unreliables, but that new – and previously forbidden – thinking is required:

Finland’s Green Party (Vihreät De Gröna) has voted by a large majority at its party conference to adopt a pro-nuclear approach. The party manifesto now states that nuclear is “sustainable energy” and demands the reform of current energy legislation to streamline the approval process for small modular reactors (SMRs). Finland’s is the first Green Party to adopt such a position.

There will be others, judging from this article by a guy who has started up or run companies dedicated to “clean energy technologies”, energy efficient homes and so forth – a True Believer in other words:

I wasted 20 years of my life chasing utopian energy.

Utopian energy is an imagined form of energy that’s abundant, reliable, inexpensive, and also clean, renewable, and life-sustaining. But utopian energy is as much a fantasy as a utopian society.

For years, I chased utopian energy. I promoted solar, wind, and energy efficiency because I felt like I was protecting the environment. But I was wrong! Feeling like you’re doing the right thing doesn’t mean you are. I just couldn’t admit it. My sense of identity was tied to my false beliefs about energy—myths that blinded me to what really does—and doesn’t—help the planet.

He puts forward eight measures of assessment that must all be used when looking at energy sources – emissions being just one of them. The other seven are: security, reliability, affordability, versatility, scalability, and land use.

Suffice to say that he’s realised that renewables don’t do very well when measured on all these factors, as he shows in that article.

Will National and ACT realise the same thing – and more crucially will they be intellectually and politically tough enough to make those arguments?

Written by Tom Hunter

July 4, 2022 at 10:22 am

THE GREEN PARTY LOOKING TO OUT-WOKE ITSELF

with 14 comments

I mean we know they’re all woke dingbat crazy but you sense the real despair in Bomber Bradbury, one of their biggest boosters, with his warning that the Green Party non-binary co-leadership model suggests a membership more infatuated with its own naval than voter pain.

To recap. Party members are to decide whether to do away with the requirement that they have a male co-leader to be replaced by a rule requiring one female co-leader and the other to be of any gender or identity. Bradbury suggests that such a move will see an exiting of the Greens white male vote to Labour (and elsewhere) and went on to say that while the Greens will herald their non-binary co-leadership model as progress the wider electorate will see it as emblematic of a woke dogma that alienates far more than they can recruit at a time of peak economic uncertainty.

He predicts that ‘James’ will go, the non binary co-leadership model will be adopted, the Green woke will will rapture over that on twitter and the Party will limp home with 7% of the vote in 2023.

We can all pray for that to happen.

Written by The Veteran

April 15, 2022 at 9:16 pm

The Samizdat remains the same

with 5 comments

The failure of new generations of Leftists to actually build anything that could be described as Left-wing has started to be noticed by at least some Leftists.

Here in New Zealand the likes of “Bomber” Bradbury have been railing about the uselessness of Ardern’s Labour government to actually solve homelessness, and poverty, despite almost five years in power, the last two with an overwhelming majority in Parliament. Moreover “neo-liberal” capitalism is still here, smashing house prices through the roof and killing young people’s chances of home ownership – with all that implies for starting families.

Moreover, Bradbury notes that even as these failures pile up the fighting over woke politics grows ever more vicious:

I see a woke activist base who act more like a cult protecting dogma than agents of progressive change. I see a Green Party that is next to fucking hopeless on anything other than the delivery of woke empty gestures welded to their own middle class pretensions.

The material issues that truly matter have been dumped in favour of middle class identity politic virtue signals that are parroted by the Twitter mob and anyone who breathes differently gets cancelled.

But it’s a global phenomena. Environmentalist Michael Shellenberger, in his article, What happened to ‘Yes we can’?, bemoans what has happened to the dream of progressives on issue after issue:

For all of my adult life I have identified as a progressive. To me, being a progressive meant that I believed in empowerment…But now, on all the major issues of the day, the message from progressives is “No, you can’t.”

From climate change to drugs to homelessness and racism, Shellenberger sees what Bradbury sees, an ideological and political movement that has gone off the rails:

The reason progressives believe that “No one is safe,” when it comes to climate change, and that the drug-death “homelessness” crisis is unsolvable, is because they are in the grip of a victim ideology characterized by safetyism, learned helplessness, and disempowerment.

This isn’t really that new. Since the 1960s, the New Left has argued that we can’t solve any of our major problems until we overthrow our racist, sexist, and capitalistic system. But for most of my life, up through the election of Obama, there was still a New Deal, “Yes we can!” and “We can do it!” optimism that sat side-by-side with the New Left’s fundamentally disempowering critique of the ­system.

That’s all gone. On climate change, drug deaths, and cultural issues like racism, the message from progressives is that we are doomed unless we dismantle the institutions responsible for our oppressive, racist system. Those of us in Generation X who were raised to believe that racism was something we could overcome have been told in no uncertain terms that we were wrong. Racism is baked into our cultural DNA.

So too does the more hardline Leftist, Matt Taibbi in this article, The Vanishing Legacy of Barack Obama, which starts off in typical Taibbi fashion:

On the road from stirring symbol of hope and change to the Fat Elvis of neoliberalism, birthday-partying Barack Obama sold us all out

Ouch! It only gets nastier from there as he starts with Barack’s fabulous 60th birthday bash in his “Who’s Afraid of Climate Change” $12 million mansion in Martha’s Vineyard:

… advisers prevailed upon the 44th president to reconsider the bacchanal. But characteristically, hilariously, Obama didn’t cancel his party, he merely uninvited those he considered less important, who happened to be almost entirely his most trusted former aides.

There’s a glorious moment in the life of a certain kind of politician, when either because their careers are over, or because they’re so untouchable politically that it doesn’t matter anymore, that they finally get to remove the public mask, no pun intended. This Covid bash was Barack Obama’s “Fuck it!” moment.

I must admit that I laughed out loud at that last bit. Closer observers of Obama had already noticed that aspect of his personality years ago:

Obama was set up to be the greatest of American heroes, but proved to be a common swindler and one of the great political liars of all time — he fooled us all. Moreover, his remarkably vacuous post-presidency is proving true everything Trump said in 2016 about the grasping Washington politicians whose only motives are personal enrichment, and who’d do anything, even attend his wedding, for a buck.

Heh. Trump spoke a great many truths about The Establishment in D.C.

How do these Leftist betrayals keep happening? The thing that Taibbi, and the German Critical Theorists and Gramsci and all the rest of these fabulous Marxist theorists continue to miss is that no matter how you dress up the pig, it’s still a swine, as Tom Wolfe waspishly noted years ago in The Intelligent Co-Ed’s Guide to America, writing about Solzhenitsyn’s coming to America:

With the Hungarian uprising of 1956 and the invasion of Czechoslo­vakia in 1968 it had become clear to Mannerist Marxists such as Sartre that the Soviet Union was now an embarrassment. The fault, however, as tout le monde knew, was not with socialism but with Stalinism. Stalin was a madman and had taken socialism on a wrong turn. (Mis­takes happen.) Solzhenitsyn began speaking out as a dissident inside the Soviet Union in 1967. His complaints, his revelations, his struggles with Soviet authorities—they merely underscored just how wrong the Stalinist turn had been.

The publication of The Gulag Archipelago in 1973, however, was a wholly unexpected blow. No one was ready for the obscene horror and grotesque scale of what Solzhenitsyn called “Our Sewage Disposal System”—in which tens of millions were shipped in boxcars to con­centration camps all over the country, in which tens of millions died, in which entire races and national groups were liquidated, insofar as they had existed in the Soviet Union. Moreover, said Solzhenitsyn, the system had not begun with Stalin but with Lenin, who had im­mediately exterminated non-Bolshevik opponents of the old regime and especially the student factions. It was impossible any longer to distinguish the Communist liquidation apparatus from the Nazi.

I always have to laugh at the trajectory that Leftists follow in this descent. People like Gorbachev and Dmitry Volkogonov at least had the excuse of having grown up in a brainwashed system, but not their Western counterparts:

Yet Solzhenitsyn went still further. He said that not only Stalinism, not only Leninism, not only Communism — but socialism itself led to the concentration camps; and not only socialism, but Marxism; and not only Marxism but any ideology that sought to reorganize morality on an a priori basis. Sadder still, it was impossible to say that Soviet socialism was not “real socialism.” On the contrary — it was socialism done by experts!

Intellectuals in Europe and America were willing to forgive Solzhe­nitsyn a great deal. After all, he had been born and raised in the Soviet Union as a Marxist, he had fought in combat for his country, he was a great novelist, he had been in the camps for eight years, he had suf­fered. But for his insistence that the isms themselves led to the death camps — for this he was not likely to be forgiven soon. And in fact the campaign of antisepsis began soon after he was expelled from the Soviet Union in 1974. (“He suffered too much — he’s crazy.” “He’s a Christian zealot with a Christ complex.” “He’s an agrarian reaction­ary.” “He’s an egotist and a publicity junkie.”)

I vividly recall that this was still the standard take on the man when I was at varsity in the 1980’s.

Solzhenitsyn’s tour of the United States in 1975 was like an enormous funeral procession that no one wanted to see. The White House wanted no part of him. The New York Times sought to bury his two major’ speeches, and only the moral pressure of a lone Times writer, Hilton Kramer, brought them any appreciable coverage at all. The major tele­vision networks declined to run the Solzhenitsyn interview that created such a stir in England earlier this year (it ran on some of the educa­tional channels).

And the literary world in general ignored him completely. In the huge unseen coffin that Solzhenitsyn towed behind him were not only the souls of the zeks who died in the Archipelago. No, the heartless bastard had also chucked in one of the last great visions: the intellec­tual as the Stainless Steel Socialist glistening against the bone heap of capitalism in its final, brutal, fascist phase. There was a bone heap, all right, and it was grisly beyond belief, but socialism had created it.

But the betrayals of Obama and Clinton and Blair and Brown and Ardern (“Wonder Woman”) and Clark and Lange and all the rest, don’t matter. The next leader of the Centre-Left parties will be hailed as the new saviour, and the entire hideous personality-cult-plus-central-control process will start all over again. These are the same people who will tell you earnestly to your face that there’s no way a modern Lenin, Stalin or Mao could arise because the Left would never make that mistake again.

Personal Protest coverage from Lindsay Mitchell

with 6 comments

Obviously there’s a lot of coverage of the Wellington Anti-mandate protests on Social Media site like Facebook/Twitter, but I should have been checking out Lindsay Mitchell’s blog as she’s had quite a few posts with personal observations and links to social media.

From the parliamentary occupation site this morning, a row of caricatures. I guess to the protestors the parties are indistinguishable. Their response is uniform. ‘We want you to go away.’ By my first-hand observation and conversations with protestors, be assured. They will not.

To be amongst the protestors is both calming and exhilarating. There’s a strong sense of trust in one another which has been long denied by lockdown separations, physical distancing and masking. People are working together to overcome adversities thrown at them by nature or the state. They know here, they can talk freely. For the first time in ages they actually feel safe in a physical community beyond the internet. 

But MPs – all of them – want you believe the protestors are ‘unsafe.’ That the city streets are being made unsafe by their presence. Now the protest site is ‘unhygienic’ and ‘contamination’ lurks. Faeces has been spotted (so have many well-cared for dogs attached to the protestors.)

Those who long ago lost trust in government can recognise alarmist media reporting and political propaganda when they see it.  

I’d choose to sit with these people any day over a parliamentary select committee.

Or Protest Day 8: Answer me this:

Where is the Maori Party when so many of the protestors are their whanau?

Where is the ACT Party when so many of the protestors are pleading for our legislated freedoms?

Where are the Greens, the very party of protest?

Where is Labour with a list ranking full of so-called activists?

Any ideas?

Oh I’ve got at least a couple of ideas about all this:

Crystallization, Madness and Tyranny

It is a fascinating moment when this sort of crystallization happens in a mass culture like America’s, because seemingly overnight even the definition of legitimate speech (or thought or action) also changes. Tocqueville observed that quite abruptly a person can no longer express opinions or raise questions that only days before were acceptable, even though no facts of the matter have changed. At an individual level, people who were within the bounds can be surprised to find themselves “tormented by the slights and persecutions of daily obloquy.” Once this occurs, he wrote, “your fellow-creatures will shun you like an impure being, and those who are most persuaded of your innocence will abandon you too, lest they should be shunned in their turn.”

Freedom and other anti-government slogans

THE DILEMMA FOR THE GREENS

leave a comment »

If you go to the Green Party policy on drug law reform at https://www.greens.org.nz/drug_law_reform you will note the statement that cannabis should be legal for private use and, further down, that tobacco should not be prohibited. I guess that leaves them on the horns of a dilemma somewhat as to whether they will support Labour’s legislation to progressively ban the sale of tobacco products.

Hoist with a petard of their own making methinks.

One could hazard a guess that the Groucho Marx dictum will come into play ….’These are my principles, and if you don’t like them … well I have others’.

Happy daze.

Written by The Veteran

December 10, 2021 at 12:36 pm

Posted in Green party

Two classes of New Zealanders

with 8 comments

It’s been a staple of Leftist politics and language since the days of Marx at least, and of course it is a template that can be applied to events further back in history than his time, notably the French Revolution and the Glorious Revoluton of 1688.

Whatever names were given it in different time periods and situations – Feudal Lords vs Peasants, Business Owners vs Workers, Colonialists vs Colonised, Us vs The Other – it has always basically amounted to Oppressor and Oppressed.

I think two quotes are applicable here, the first being the complete one rather than the usual shortened version, since the second part is eerily close to where we are now and where we are going:

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.

In this situation we should also not look to George Orwell’s dark vision of Nineteen Eighty Four but a different future dystopia, one that has appealed to me more as the years have passed since the great Counter-Culture revolution of the 1960’s.

“There will be, in the next generation or so, a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude, and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak, producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies, so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them, but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.”

I have of course made sure that the tags on this post are not just for the Labour Party, but also for National, ACT and the Greens.

I was informed that these were OTT comparisons to NZ

with 8 comments

Vaccine certificate will be central to the new ‘traffic-light’ system – RNZ

It is that sort of comparison that causes the opponents of the current Lockdowns to be ridiculed. And no, you won’t be able to convince me that basically I am (and just about everyone I know) is just the same as the Nazi SS.

It’s certainly time to re-visit this goodie, even if she has resigned, because luckily you’ll still be able to laugh without a vaccine certificate.

NICK SMITH WUZ RIGHT ON THE MONEY

with 16 comments

My Profile

In leading the charge to have National oppose Labour’s attempt to rort the electoral system by seeking to enable Maori to switch to and from the Maori roll at will.

Maori enjoy a special privilege with the current seven Maori seats. That is a privilege not to be abused by waka jumping as the mood (or Party pressure) dictates.

But there is a more fundamental reason to oppose any change to the status quo. The number of Maori seats is determined by a formula calculated on the number of voters choosing to go on the Maori roll. Were voters able to decamp from the Maori roll to the General roll after the number of seats has been determined (following the census) then the very legitimacy of those seats becomes a moot.

Well done National for preventing the move … not so much for Labour and their Green bros in arms.

Written by The Veteran

July 29, 2020 at 8:56 am

A billion dollar slush fund won’t save Winston First

leave a comment »

The news is rapidly spreading through the farming community that the recently passed Zero Carbon Act had some funny things going on behind the scenes with the negotiations between Labour, Greens, National and NZ First.

And it all focused around methane.

Methane is the main greenhouse gas emission from agriculture, and makes up roughly half of New Zealand’s GHG emissions, mainly from livestock belching – not farting as the jokes have it. The Paris Accord which NZ signed up to, does have a methane component to it, but it’s a small factor compared to CO2 and even around that small factor the uncertainties of its potential GHG impact are significant:

The results suggest that revised methane emissions estimates will only have a very modest effect on carbon budgets. The revised emissions lead to a decrease in the allowable carbon budget by around 1 to 2% over the next 20 years, Forster and Smith say.

And that’s assessing the world-wide production of methane, which itself is tough to estimate. It’s a non-starter GHG on a global scale even before one looks at our portion of it.

We’re here to destroy your planet

Everybody else focuses on CO2 resulting from industrial production, while New Zealand is the only nation that’s focusing attention on agricultural methane.

Pity really as our traditional non-industrial base, 70% renewable electricity, and other lucky factors that we’ve inherited would otherwise see us looking pretty good on the CO2 emissions front.

But because New Zealand loves trying to be a World Leader on global issues and because we love looking virtuous in front of the rest of the world – an enduring legacy of our Cultural Cringe – we’ve decided to go after methane as the “Nuclear Free moment of our generation” – and other such shite.

Daisy’s new home – a Herd Home

The target is a 10 per cent reduction on 2017 levels by 2030 and between 24 and 47 per cent reduction by 2050 and this has been vehemently opposed by farmers.

This is of course labelled as wooden-headed opposition to Climate Change theory.

But farmers have good reason to oppose the targets, even aside from the objection to being sacrificed to no purpose.

Apart from anything else, the primary way it might be tackled – genetic engineering of grass and animals – is a non-starter with the Greens, the very party demanding action on reducing GHG’s. This is fighting with one hand tied behind your back.

Instead there’s talk of planting different grasses, methane digestors using the solids dumped on concrete feedpads or herd homes, or crude approaches like simply reducing the size of dairy herds. How “sustainable” any of these would be in terms of income vs. cost for farmers is little debated.

My view is that it will simply do what Big Government always does – aid Big Business.

Most of these approaches will squeeze out small farms (meaning anything less than 250 cows), which will be bought up by corporate farms, large trusts and partnerships – or Landcorp.

Clean and Green Farming

Farms of 1000 plus cows using the “cut-and-carry” model; cutting and carrying stock food to cows housed in sheds 365 days of the year, combined with wage and salary workers to operate it all like a factory. Such units can easily carry the capital investment of herd homes costing $300k to house 250 cows or any of the other Capex involved. And remember that all this sunk cost will contribute not one bit to increase income or reduce costs, aside from avoiding the artificial cost of an artificial tax. For large units that’s a shrug of the shoulders: for small farms it’s death.

Dirty Farming

So much for our traditional image of cows grazing on green paddocks of family-owned farms, or  sharemilkers and contract milkers making their way up the ladder. That model is dead, and it turns out that the image compared to the US/Northern Euro factory barn approach is worth nothing in terms of branding or marketing. Apparently the Northern Hemisphere model is the one that’s cleaner and greener – at least when it comes to GHG’s.

The political factor has always been easy to see. Labour and the Greens have an easier ride of it because they only have to worry about their urban voters: for all the talk of EV’s and the like, Labour in particular is never going to impose the costs of eliminating fossil fuels in the only way that works, which is straight-out elimination via regulations and/or massive increases in the prices of petrol, natural gas, and so forth. For all the city talk of being concerned about Climate Change, there’s only so much cost those voters will wear. Even though it’s a Climate Crisis.

By contrast, farmers are rich pricks who can easily carry almost any cost, are vastly fewer in number, traditionally vote National, and easily demonised. They’re the perfect target because it doesn’t cost Labour-Greens anything.

That’s the real reason for the focus on methane.

And all it required was the weaponising of the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), which the Clarke government put in place in 2008 as it was going out the door, and which National left alone as it played both sides of the issue.

Having said that, these sorts of concerns did lead the National Party to push for the methane reduction target to be removed from the Zero Carbon Bill, which it eventually voted to support anyway. That’s not much of a surprise as they continue to try and split the difference between their rural and urban voters.

But what is a surprise is that none other than the Climate Change Minister himself – Green Party co-leader James Shaw – considered doing exactly that, instead allowing it to be set by a commission.

But here’s the kicker – NZ First would not support such a move.

I was a bit surprised by this news at first but then I realised what was going on.

Winston was sticking it to the National Party.

So filled with hatred for them is he, that he would not allow them anything that looked like a win. Had National not been part of these conversations Winston may well have stuffed the methane targets, since that would have given him a very solid talking point as he trawls for provincial votes with the globulous fraud, Shane Jones.

But not now. Winston just burned off any farming votes he might have expected, and given the dependency of provincial towns and cities on farmer’s economic success, he may well have burned off other provincial votes as well.