Some decent policies from other parties
I’m not going to be voting for them, but here’s some policies I like from other parties. A later post will detail the ones I don’t like.
- Labour saying they will raise the age of entitlement to Super from 65 to 67
- United Future’s policy of making the pension effectively an annuity and you can either take it ealry at 60 for a lesser amount or later at 70 for a greater amount
- The Greens policy for small business tax compliance, as recommended by the NZICA. Well worth doing.
- Labour’s open government proposals
- NZ First’s pledge to repeal the copyright file-sharing law (I suspect they don’t actually understand the issue in detail though as their pledge as listed would take us back to the far far worse Section 92A as passed by Labour which was guilt upon accusation. But I give them marks for good intentions)
- ACT’s policy to cap spending at 29% of GDP
- Labour’s support of a Capital Gains Tax. Their one is riddled with exemptions, but there is a case for one in the future.
- ACT’s policy to remove fee caps for tertiary institutes, and interest rates for student loans
- Labour’s policy to have a whole of government approach to open source software
- ACT’s performance pay for teachers policy
- Labour’s gay adoption policy
- Green’s policy on home insulation
I’ve yet to find a Conservative Party policy I like, but to be fair I didn’t look very hard. Maori and Mana policies are not really targeted at me!
Feel free to comment with your own list of policies you like from the minor parties.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Election 2011
9(unknown*no*no*1)&guid=ON){kind=small}
November 24th, 2011 at 2:54 pm
DPF, you want more taxes? Really?
I forgot you supported the ETS, too. That explains it.
[DPF: I support broad base, low rates. Absolutely any CGT should lead to equal reductions in income tax rates]
November 24th, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Sorry, don’t see how raising the retirement age to 67 in the manner proposed solves anything.
The reason superannuation is becoming a problem is because of the large baby-boom generation approaching retirement, and there not being sufficient working-age people to support a universal super.
However the current proposals start raising the age in 2020. At that point those aged 65 or older would have been born in 1955 or earlier. By 2033 a 67-year old will have been born in 1966 or earlier.
This completely misses dealing with the bulge of retirees. The baby-boom years are from 1946 to 1964. Well over half of baby-boomers will already have retired by 2020 and half of the rest will have their pay-day delayed by a few months at worst.
So raising the retirement age as proposed really only affects post-baby-boom people, and by the time they come to retire, large numbers of the real baby-boomers will be dying off, flattening out the demand curve and solving the funding problem all by itself.
November 24th, 2011 at 3:10 pm
What safeguards does UF’s policy have? i.e. at what age do you have to commit to the year you start receiving super. Otherwise it’s self-defeating as those that have to retire early due to health take it earlier, thus allowing them to collect more (they’d normally die early after 65 otherwise), whereas those that don’t really need it due to good health don’t take it until later, yet live longer, thus benefitting more. Average payout per person may thus increase. Otherwise it’s a fine policy.
Personally I’m all for lowering the super age (and dropping the super contribution) down to 18, thus making it a universal income, and then get rid of all the special casing that we have now. It doesn’t actually cost much more than we’re spending now, and the extra cost is recoverable by getting rid of the discounted tax rates at lower incomes and ensuring capital returns at a productive rate (thus capturing tax from capital gains).
Why do ACT choose 29% as the cap for government spending?
November 24th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
1. How about the reinstatement of the tax free status for premiums (to ~$1100pa) that was dumped a decade ago?
2. Agree.
3. Anything that reduces compliance costs for small business has to be good!
4. Why?
5. Good intentions? NZ First? Nah – unless it suits Winston first and foremost.
6. Wouldn’t it be better to prioritise spending, rather than an arbitrary figure on spending.
7. Disagree. This would remove the retirement nest egg that has been built up over decades by prudent Kiwis.
8. Student Loans should have interest charged. Agree.
9. Logical. Amazing that Labour thought of it.
10. Absolutely.
11. Dunno about this – has anyone seriously thought of the effects this could have on kids with 2 ‘Dads’ / 2 ‘Mums’?
12. Absolutely.
November 24th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
I liked Peter Dunne’s suggestion that the costings of all political parties policies should be analysed by an independent body.
As a candidate in the election I have listened to some candidates talk absolute horseshit while an appropriately angry public lapped it up, made-up figures and all.
It is obvious some of the Labour candidates have done some careful analysis of the world economy and have real concerns about likely flow-on effects for New Zealand.
The rising unemployment, particularly among those with no qualifications or work experience seems to have motivated many of them to say what ever it takes to keep their job.
November 24th, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Martin: I absolutely like teh costing one also, and after the election will push the Govt and Prlt to look at it.
November 24th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
re: Super – they may have to change the retirement age in the U.S as well, as according to Thomas Sowell, the US has already spent the Social Security money. Goodness knows where they’re going to come up with it.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell022299.asp
November 24th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
I love labour’s Kiwisaver policy – I know it means lower wage growth (meaning lower inflation), and employees costing more but once it is started we will have a massive pool of savings giving people a far improved retirement. Furthermore it gets people into the saving habbit. It has tempted me to vote for Labour, but I will stick with the Big Blue party.
While I love Kiwiblog I reckon I will not get much support here for this.
November 24th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
I have been sitting here for 10 minutes trying to think of a single policy, by any minor party, that I like. Unable to. Enough said.
Vote National.
November 24th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Libertarianz policy of a special economic zone for Christchurch deserves a much higher profile.
November 24th, 2011 at 3:51 pm
I like just about all the Conservative party policies….
November 24th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
I’ve yet to find a Conservative Party policy I like, but to be fair I didn’t look very hard.
You obviously missed repealing the ETS, that tax that pays for a nonexistent problem, but don’t worry the farmers haven’t.
November 24th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Green’s policy on home insulation
Elaycee (1,752) Says:
November 24th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
12. Absolutely.
So you think its right that others taxpayers money should be spent on putting heat pumps into already comfortable homes of the well healed in the Northern regions?
Been thousands installed at your and mine expense only to increase the use of power when actually we should be looking at the future demand.
Again it is in your opinion right that owners of houses should be subsidized to enhance the value of their private property by the tax payer.
Typical socialist.
November 24th, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Youth rates or better still removing the restrictions placed on Labour markets. Act has consistently pushed for the removal of state legislated wage rates.
Removal of the export destroying ETS. ACT policy and Nationals shame tax.
Streamlining the RMA ACT policy
Vouchers for pupils to buy their choice of education.
Act policy forever.
Anything that will cut the cost of business.
November 24th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Re: ACT’s policy to cap spending at 29% of GDP
In the USA, where they currently have a massive debt problem and no concrete plans to bring it under control, if I recall correctly current spending is around 24% of GDP (up from around 20%).
The USA lefties want to raise taxes to help cover for the increased spending, whereas the righties want to cut the spending which has balooned.
So as leftyliberal asks, why does ACT choose 29%?
If the lefties in the US are happy with 24% then surely NZ’s “hard right” ACT party ought be happy to shoot for 24% too!
November 24th, 2011 at 4:42 pm
United Future’s income sharing policy levels the tax playing field for wage earners in families, those in business already manage to spread income between partners. It makes it easier for couples to make choices regarding who works and whether one parent stays at home looking after the kids.
This is already part way through parliament.
November 24th, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Gay adoption…..now there’s a really pressing problem that needs sorting!
November 24th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
So why didn’t you list the Greens’ support of a Capital Gains Tax which is NOT riddled with exemptions? By your reasoning and mine, DPF, it is far better policy than Labour’s. Simple and minimises compliance costs.
[DPF: Fair point. I guess because having a major party propose something is more significant as it stands a real chance of then happening]
November 24th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
FWIW toad, I’ve been advising many friends of mine to vote Greens (but only those who would have otherwise voted Labour).
Good Luck Saturday…
November 24th, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Toad
Do you think that the reason DPF did not mention the Greens is because nobody trusts a word you lot have to say?
November 24th, 2011 at 5:04 pm
See #3
November 24th, 2011 at 5:05 pm
“. Maori and Mana policies are not really targeted at me!”
Yet because you are a white mother fucker you are expected to pay for them.
November 24th, 2011 at 5:08 pm
@big bruv 4:58 pm
I think the trends in polling would indicate that the Greens are increasingly being trusted by the public more than Labour.
BTW, BB, any update on your oft-repeated forecast that this election would see the Greens out of Parliament?
November 24th, 2011 at 5:13 pm
@Pete George 4:42 pm
It is another regressive tax move, Pete. Favours families when one earner has a very high income and the other has a low income. Does nothing to help families where both earners have low incomes. And it is discriminatory on the basis of family status, because it does not apply to couples who do not have kids. Arguably, it is also indirectly discriminatory on the basis of sexual orientation for the same reason.
November 24th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Toad
I made comment about that a few weeks ago. My anger with Goff and Labour is that their piss poor performance has allowed you duplicitous bastards to be in the house for one more term. Had Labour done a half decent job the Greens would be gone.
However, I remain convinced that you will not get anywhere near 15% come election day, I suspect that once people go into the booth they will go back to Labour, this will see your lot get around 8%-9%.
Either way it is a bloody crime and another example of why we need to get rid of MMP.
November 24th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
Martin Gibson says:- “I liked Peter Dunne’s suggestion that the costings of all political parties policies should be analysed by an independent body.”
To be fair to Dunne, this is a good idea. Don’t like UF’s variable Super option though. I also agree with labour’s policy of raising the retirement age and introducing a CGT, although I’d prefer a land tax.
ACT have some good tax policy ideas as well, especially the low company tax rate, but I don’t agree with lowering GST or cutting excise tax on petrol or repealing the ETS.
November 24th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
david@tokyo (202) Says:
November 24th, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Re: ACT’s policy to cap spending at 29% of GDP
In the USA, where they currently have a massive debt problem and no concrete plans to bring it under control, if I recall correctly current spending is around 24% of GDP (up from around 20%).
The USA lefties want to raise taxes to help cover for the increased spending, whereas the righties want to cut the spending which has balooned.
So as leftyliberal asks, why does ACT choose 29%?
If the lefties in the US are happy with 24% then surely NZ’s “hard right” ACT party ought be happy to shoot for 24% too!
What is that some can’t figure out?
ACT are not right wing. That has to be the falsest representation of any in politics in NZ.
Its also what holds ACT back and it is also ACT’s fault for not countering that mistruth.
Act was born of the left and is socially liberal but more to the right of left than the centre of left National Party.
Where the National Party started out before they became socialist party followers.
November 24th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
Addressing the wage gap with Australia will be a key issue for Act in any cooperation deal with National, leader Don Brash says.
Speaking at Act’s Wellington campaign close today, Dr Brash focused on the transtasman gap, and announced that re-establishing a taskforce to address the income gap would be a top priority in any confidence and supply agreement with National.
Dr Brash said the near-record numbers of New Zealanders moving across the Tasman was an urgent situation, and pointed to recent statistics showing the number had risen to 25,000 per year.
“For decades, there has been a strong relationship between the exodus of New Zealanders across the Tasman and the gap between New Zealand and Australian incomes. When the gap grows, New Zealanders leave faster.”
Addressing the gap has long been a central issue for Act, and in 2009 the 2025 Taskforce was set up as part of the party’s confidence and supply agreement with National to look at ways to close the gap.
The taskforce was dumped earlier this year after the Government ruled out picking up a number of its recommendations, including raising the superannuation age, reintroducing interest on student loans, cutting taxes, selling state-assets and encouraging foreign investment.
“In 2008, 2025 seemed like a time frame by which we could close the gap. It gave us 17 years to do so. Given that we have fallen further behind in the past three years, and the Prime Minister does not want to move as fast as the Taskforce proposed previously, it seems we will need more time,” Dr Brash said today.
“And so it is with great sadness that I call for a 2030 Taskforce, to measure the gap between New Zealand and Australia, and give suggestions for closing it by 2030.”
So that would be one of the best policies around would it not.
So John how well did your refusal to grapple with this issue go? Really well for Air NZ.
November 24th, 2011 at 6:35 pm
I’ve yet to find a Conservative Party policy I like, but to be fair I didn’t look very hard
Which is one reason to NOT vote National.
For me it is asset sales, so the decision is easy.
If National lose to a coalition of the many it will be because of asset sales.
November 24th, 2011 at 7:00 pm
Can’t believe I’m about to say this but I like Mana’s policy of making the first $27,000 tax free. You could even then have a 15% flat income tax from here by limiting spending to 20% of GDP. Could all be done in one term if someone had the balls to make such a move.
In terms of the 10 policies above
1. Would rather have it go from 65 to 70, starting 2014, raising it by 1 month every 3 months
2. Have super available at ages 60,65,70,75 and increased weekly payout the later you take it
3. Would rather have first $100,000 tax free zone for all businesses plus the easier compliance
4. Meh
5. I like the idea of protecting intellectual property, even on the net, but take a common sense approach to this
6. Have spending capped at 20% of GDP
7. Have a CGT at 10%. I support a broad based tax approach, lower flatter income taxes supported by few other taxes
8. Absolutely support, but leave interest free for those who signed on during interest free era, as it was part of the contract they signed. SO only new applicants for student loans from 2014 would start having interest on the loans.
9. Don’t know enough to comment
10. Fully support
11. Don’t know their policy but can assume it is pretty liberal, thus support it
12. Support it for long term positive impact for citizens
November 24th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
My favourite minor party policy is United Future’s zero tertiary fees policy. This is funded by doing away with student allowance (which is so heavily abused) so that the sole cost for the student is living expenses. Apparently it’s next to cost neutral.
This would mean much smaller student loans – for example a medical degree tends to put people $100,000 in debt; under this policy it would be more like $40,000 max.
I think it would be such a coup for National-United to bring this in next term as it would completely shut down anything the left tried to do to claim it helps students.
November 24th, 2011 at 7:19 pm
ACTs education policy, if only they had made it the issue for this election.
Bankies policy to get rid of Brash, ACT are history with that dinosaur running it (I appreciate his economic ability, but he didn’t need to be the leader to be the powerhouse in that area).
Nationals public private partnerships (otherwise erroneously called asset sales).
UF progressive super
Winston first policy of not supporting anybody and hence consigning himself to proving he’s a lier or retired.
Labours dole to apprenticeship subsidy, sensible to get people trained in real work, hell I’d take on a couple of apprentices given that policy (can’t afford it right now, but pay me to train them and I’ll do it).
November 24th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Universal wage $12k tax free, work for everything else, 25% flat tax, no dole, no wff, get 20%, full Comprehensive CGT.
Ie a comprehensive overhaul of tax, welfare. Very simply, cost neutral, massive redundancies in IRD WINZ.
Unfortunately National don’t have the balls, and the rest of the parasites would see it as a personal attack on their “rights”.
November 24th, 2011 at 7:47 pm
ACT’s road pricing policy has to get a tick from me. Also their policy of land use liberalization.
November 24th, 2011 at 7:54 pm
@Mick Mac
Because they aren’t selling assets, or because you think they are selling them?
I know this is off-topic, but basically you’ve been misinformed by Labour’s punchy three-word slogan. What Key’s going to do is like a share float. Similar to what TradeMe did, and what Facebook plans to do next year. It’s a pretty good idea to pay off some debt. I think it’s good to have some interesting shares to by on our exchange.
November 24th, 2011 at 8:34 pm
Viking2 says: “So you think its right that others taxpayers money should be spent on putting heat pumps into already comfortable homes of the well healed in the Northern regions?” and then “Again it is in your opinion right that owners of houses should be subsidized to enhance the value of their private property by the tax payer. Typical socialist.”
Really?
Firstly, for someone who regularly mentions literacy and comprehension skills, I’m sure you really meant to say ‘well heeled’ rather than ‘well healed’ as you are trying to comment on home insulation policies rather than those relating to health.
In any event, I suggest you read up about the home insulation policy initiative first, because its an extension of the existing (successful) programme for home insulation for another 200,000 homes (targeting old stock) over the next three years. In part, this policy is about this:
“If you are the home owner and your home was built before the year 2000, you qualify for a one-off grant of 33% off the costs of ceiling and underfloor insulation up to a maximum of $1,300 (incl. GST). If the spaces are accessible, you will need to get both ceiling and underfloor insulation installed to qualify for funding. Once you have installed the appropriate ceiling and underfloor insulation, you may then be eligible for a further $500 clean heating subsidy.”
I actually think that’s a good idea – apart from the obvious improvement in lower grade housing stock / reduced energy bills / healthier homes / less illnesses for the occupants etc, there are employment benefits for the people doing the work. In addition, (in relation to the houses already done), the cost / benefit is quoted as being for every $1 spent, there is a benefit of $3.
You see, Viking2 – no political party has a mortgage on good ideas and maybe one day you’ll open both eyes to realise that we can all learn from others.
Now you label me a ‘typical socialist’ because I support this scheme?? Mate, you need to get out more. Lots more.
November 24th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
As a developing nation we can’t afford an across the board CGT. One on volume or frequency of housing stock traded yes.
Thanks for telling me my contribution to the household is worth nothing Toad, just because I earn fuck all and have chosen to stay home and raise kids for 10 years. Actually you can fuck off. New Zealand would do well to send a message that raising a family is a professional and worthy occupation via income sharing. Might do something for the child abuse figures.
November 24th, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Elaycee you are right it isn’t socialism it is regressive transfers to property owners.
Re cost/benefit, if the benefits are private then it is no business of the taxpayer. If the benefits are deemed public due to the presence of a publicly funded health system, then that is a slippery slope. Shall we tax skiing, and mountain biking and fatty food? Shall we subsidize monogamy, and tax homosexuality? Etc.
November 24th, 2011 at 10:07 pm
haha go Monique!
The old: “If everyone can’t have it then noone should” is an integral part of socialist thinking; that lint-coloured twilight between winning and losing, awake and asleep, numbness and pain.
I am surprised that only Jeremy Harris has picked up on the ETS also as an issue where the Conservatives and ACT seem to be thinking right, and everyone else seems to be sleepwalking into disaster.
We should absolutely not re-sign with it next year, or we should at least remove agriculture.
In leiu of unfocusing on our tiny contribution to the non-problem of CO2 in the atmosphere, we should say to the outraged Europeans (who are going down the gurgler anyway thanks in part to the bankers new found passion for profitable environmentalism) that we have identified our own urgent problem as water quality.
We will be spending the money that would otherwise go to the developing world via a horribly corrupt trading system into replanting all our waterways.
With Japan’s oceans rather more full of radioactive isotopes these days, it would also give us good clean places to grow sea vegetables for their market, and the world’s.
This would solve a lot of our youth unemployment, and would result in our coastlines exploding into life that we could then export and eat ourselves. It would make a real difference to the environment, where even the most ardent warmers admit the trading schemes won’t do jack to make the 0.034% atmostpheric CO2 any less because anthropogenic CO2 is only 3% of that.
Focusing on replanting rivers would make the country look so much better. The muddy, de-oxegenated, warm ditches that pass for rivers here are something we should be ashamed of, not the gas from our ruminants.
I just can’t understand why so few people see the whole CO2 issue for the scam it is, although I have the benefit of a degree in science and a non-religious nature which both help.
November 24th, 2011 at 10:34 pm
toad, Monique says you’re dumb
November 24th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
Martin Gibson says:- “although I have the benefit of a degree in science and a non-religious nature which both help.” and “With Japan’s oceans rather more full of radioactive isotopes these days”
I doubt you have any training in science at all based on what you just wrote.
Monique Watson says:- “New Zealand would do well to send a message that raising a family is a professional and worthy occupation via income sharing.”
Oh rubbish. Most parents are complete amateurs with a false sense of entitlement. Cheaper to import the talent trained and crime free, without having to pay for their education, welfare or dropout rate. You wanna have kids, fine, you can pay for your hobby.
November 25th, 2011 at 7:45 am
@swan – if money is saved just via the health system alone, then there IS a benefit to the taxpayer. Anyway, the home owners have to meet criteria and front up with 66.6% of the costs before the programme can start, so its not a hand out per se.
I note your dislike of taxpayer funding for anything to do with private property. On this premise, I take it that you have also told the folk of Christchurch to get stuffed? In some cases, it pays to remember you have a pulse whilst you’re looking at the numbers on the spreadsheet. Have you ever donated to Starship? Even served meals on Christmas Day at the City Mission?
Try it some time – you may be in for a surprise.
Oh, and on the matter of the ‘costs’ relating to activities such as skiing / mountain biking etc, the funding is already done via ACC. Via levies paid by….. employers.
November 25th, 2011 at 8:21 am
Sorry Scott Chris, I know heresy can be traumatic . . . but your unshakeable faith will get you through, and protects you from having to actually make an argument, you snide little fellow.
November 25th, 2011 at 8:31 am
@Monique Watson: Toad did not say that your contribution to the household is worth nothing, merely that he sees other problems with the income sharing suggestion (i.e. it favours one group over others). Given the Green’s policies for the family (such as paid parental leave and the like) I suspect that he is entirely supportive of your decision to stay at home and raise your kids.
November 25th, 2011 at 8:36 am
“…your unshakeable faith will get you through, and protects you from having to actually make an argument, you snide little fellow.”
Pwned.
November 25th, 2011 at 8:39 am
Although there was a howler you didn’t spot with the percentage of CO2 . . .long day. It is actually 0.000392%, which means the CO2 in the atmosphere which is a result of human activity and the focus of all this time money bile and opportunity cost is 0.00001161%.
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/06/marine-scientists-begin-cruise.html
Truth is not voted into being by scientists on the basis of where the funding is.
Have you noticed how quiet the hysteria about climate change has gone, save the odd bit of nonsense to keep the pot boiling? The degree of warming is nothing like that predicted in the early 2000s.
The nonsense of “Green Jobs”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFaqmHOeNmg
More heresy
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/1/scientific-heresy.html
November 25th, 2011 at 8:54 am
Elaycee,
Point noted. I certainly dont think insulation is the worst thing a government can spend money on, if it must…
However, Christchuch being a case in point, I do think that property owners, and in particular owners of property that they also happen to occupy, are given pretty favourable treatment by the government. And I struggle to understand why. Anyone who owns property (aside from a bit of dirt in the middle of nowhere) is by definition not on the bones of their ass. Welfare for those who really need it thanks.
November 25th, 2011 at 9:14 am
Martin Gibson says:- “Although there was a howler you didn’t spot”
It was your unqualified skepticism combined with your inability to place a decimal point combined with your alarmist assessment of the contamination risk in Japan that led me to make my observation. BTW, the accepted expression of CO2 concentration is in parts per million.
>>”Truth is not voted into being by scientists on the basis of where the funding is.”
Of course not, that is why science has a rigorous peer review system which soon exposes the fools and the frauds. You have no idea of the intense scrutiny the science of global warming has been subjected to by the very people who are most qualified to understand it – other scientists. Even arch-skeptic Richard Muller has changed his tune.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/15/-ex-skeptic-richard-muller-congress-global-warming_n_1094966.html
>>”Have you noticed how quiet the hysteria about climate change has gone”
Yes, mainly because AGW is now universally accepted as *probably* being an actuality, and the remaining skeptics have run out of ammunition.
November 25th, 2011 at 10:39 am
Nothing the link you supplied contradicts anything I said.
“The “human component is somewhat uncertain,” Muller cautioned of climate change science, and it is an area “worth some additional scientific addressing.”
“He encouraged climate skeptics to evaluate his research critically and acknowledge the earth is getting warmer, adding, “I think we need to listen to the skeptics and see when they are raising good issues.”"
Climate changes. I agree the earth is warming, I agree there is an anthropogenic component, I don’t think it is as major as New Zealand’s actors anarchists and artists would have me believe. I certainly don’t believe that paying money to the UN or buying other people’s non-pollution is the best expression of Kiwi concern about the environment or use of Kiwi money. Even the most ardent proponents of carbon trading agree it will have little effect on CO2 levels.
You are speaking in cliche when you talk about my “unqualified skepticism”. I was not being skeptical about AGW so much as making the point that on a continuum of environmental issues faced by New Zealand, the state of our rivers would be more worthy of the time and effort and would furthermore have more social, economic and environmental benefits.
Your criticism of the point I made about the market opportunities that arise from the Fukishima disaster suggest you either didn’t read or understand what I wrote. Whether it is alarmist or not, the concern among Japanese people is real, and I won’t be buying
Japanese nori for a while myself.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-24/threat-to-japanese-food-chain-multiplies-as-cesium-contamination-spreads.html
As to the reason for the skeptics running out of ammunition . . . only if you follow the MSM. The success rate of predicting climate by modelling is a joke.
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/
. . . but you’re not actually after a rational argument are you? Okay, carry on with the ad hominem attacks.