Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Kieran debate - Coggle Diagram
Kieran debate
ETS
Backwards on how we should be combating climate change. Polluter is not changing their actions and continuing to pollute. Our country is losing pristine food producing land forever. Need to protect the gemstone of our country rural New Zealand, who are New Zealand’s biggest exporter and are world leading in their industry, producing the most sustainable meat. Instead of acting as a loophole for other countries to keep polluting, in protecting the valuable land we would be forcing the polluters to make a sustainable change to their actions,
-
Average sheep and beef farm will generate 4.2 local jobs per annum per 1000 hectares, pine trees 2.2 local jobs per annum per 1000 hectares, carbon farm 0.6 local jobs per annum per 1000 hectares
Look into more sustainable options such as natives that don't have the detrimental impacts on the earth that pine trees do. Come at a cost of $4,000 a hectare to plant versus $1500 a hectare to plant pine trees
Signed the Paris Accord along with 196 other countries in 2016. Aim of the Paris accord is to, ‘substantially reduce global greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to limit the global temperature increase’. States in article 2.1 of the Paris accord, we must do this ‘in a manner that does not threaten food production’.
The current plantation of pine trees is being fuelled by ill intentions of making money and being able to falsely gain the status of carbon neutral.
Labour governments ‘market-based approach for reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases’. Designed to ‘assist New Zealand to meet its international obligations under the Paris agreement’
Sequester carbon for 18 years, then left, land lock up, redundant and never to be used again. Overseas investors then has the ability to sell the carbon credits which enables them to continue their business, as it allows them to bypass the laws as supposedly being carbon neutral.
80% of our forests are owned by overseas investors. Easy for an overseas investor to walk in and buy land for carbon, but very hard for them to buy land to farm.
The ETS is dramatically reducing our ability to produce food. We are not playing our part, upholding what we signed up to do under the Paris Accord.
'We have leveraged the 100% pure, clean and green image that we have cultivated over decades in order to extract the best price possible for our products' - forestry is not clean and green
-
'back the majority of farmers who want the best price for their products, the best for the environment and the best for our country' - we will have no land left to produce meat on, pine trees are not best for the environment.
Questions
Why doesn't labour craft this program to be beneficial. Banning whole farm conversions and making natives more assessable to plant would still allow us to achieve our climate change goals but doing so in a more long-term sustainable way, as natives encourage bio diversity and don't pollute the environment.
How is labour planning on stopping us losing huge amounts of valuable food producing land when the carbon credit price is only set to continue skyrocketing
At what point will we be taken to until the government realises that we are losing food producing land for a short term, unsustainable, 'fix' for climate change
-
Why is it okay for overseas companies to buy our farms to plant in trees and then claim they are carbon neutral but they aren't changing their behaviours
-
-
Do thy realise from the conversion of farms we are losing things like rural schools. The farms out Tinui could see the role drop to 20
Once the land is never going to come back to pastraol. Lost there are fewer farms available our dreams of being a 'kiwi farmer' is becoming less and less because there are lees farms available so damn near impossible to enter farming
Te Marie, Annale - 25,000 stock units lost. Tinui area alone.
In recent years (excluding 2021) an estimated 700,000 su's are out of the supply chain in the conversion of hill country to forestry.
Three waters
-
The Government will put forward legislation for New Zealand's three water services – drinking water, wastewater and stormwater – to be managed by four new publicly owned water entities, replacing the services currently managed by 67 council
-
-
It is plain for anyone to see that the Three Waters reforms are an asset and power grab by a Government that never met a public service it didn’t want to centralise and control.
Undemocratic
Labour did not campaign on these reforms during the last election and is now pressuring councils to support complex, far-reaching reforms during a pandemic, without time for local consultation. Even though most councils oppose the plan, Nanaia Mahuta says she has the right to simply force the new regime on local councils whether they like it or not.
No Local Control
While the Government claims councils will still 'own' water assets, councils will lose their rights of control. Decisions around selling assets, receiving dividends, and setting charges will be made by unelected entities, with no provision for councils to withdraw from the new regime.
So Kerin, Correct me if I'm wrong but from what i understand...
In the middle of a pandemic the government wants to seize your water assets and put them in the hands of unelected co-governed entities. Calling this 3 waters but won’t they tell you the three dangerous consequences of: Higher Water Costs, Unnecessary Bureaucracy, No Local Control. We believe this is very undemocratic.
Unnecessary Bureaucracy
Under the proposed reforms, there will be four layers of bureaucracy separating ratepayers from the new water entities. Councils will join with iwi to appoint a regional body which will appoint a selection panel which will appoint the entity board. That is madness.
Higher Water Costs
The Government claims larger water entities will be more efficient, but the Government’s own peer review rubbishes the claimed savings, which don’t even consider the financial implications of co-governance. There is no limit on how much the unelected entities can charge for water services, no stopping iwi groups charging ‘water royalties’ nor is there a requirement for councils to reduce rates to reflect the fact they will no longer supply water services.
The Government have proposed to take billions of dollars' worth of drinking water, waste water, and storm water assets off the hands of local councils and put them under the control of four new unelected, co-governed entities.
-
General questions
overseas reporters are calling us a Communist country. To a certain degree do you not believe that this is true when we are having things like, creating two classes of the vaccinated and unvaccinated which have different rights. Given the Maoris a promotion code that allows them to skip in front of other races in order to get a vaccine. Taking our own assets off us such as the three waters grab.
-
-
The purpose of the opposition party is to hold the elected party account but whenever the opposition party questions labour either in the debating chamber they get told to be quiet when they are just doing their job or when Jacinda's interviews but interviewers who actually question her and challenge her ideas she refuses to be interviewed by them so no one is able to hold her and your party to account
-