Saturday soapbox

Saturday’s soapbox is yours to use as you will – within the bounds of decency and absence of defamation.

You’re welcome to look back or forward, discuss issues of the moment, to pontificate, ponder or point us to something of interest, to educate, elucidate or entertain, to muse or amuse.

:) kindest, Boris<

About these ads

19 Responses to Saturday soapbox

  1. willdwan says:

    Not long now until Teletext disappears forever. Am I the only sad case who will miss it?

  2. homepaddock says:

    I wrote a rural views column for Teletext in the late 80s – it paid for our groceries during the ag-sag – but haven’t looked at it for years.

  3. Will says:

    I liked that column.

  4. Viv says:

    Why didn’t the National party send a representative to yesterday’s launch of the National Risk Assement Project?

  5. homepaddock says:

    I presume you mean no MP and I don’t know. Posibly all had full diaries and other priorities.

  6. homepaddock says:

    Thanks, you’ve got a good memory, it was a long time ago.

  7. TraceyS says:

    Why don’t you ask someone from the organising committee Viv? I’m sure they could tell you who was invited and what their response was.

  8. Viv says:

    I did mean MPs, I wonder what more important activities they had on. I certainly hope there were National party members there to listen. As the headline in the ODT says, it is a cross party plea to all politicians. It would have been a positive start to have had some National party involvement.

  9. JC says:

    Why?

    Its just a workshop for left political activists.

    JC

  10. Viv says:

    Do the right not consider the deteriorating state of the world that we are leaving our children an important enough subject to talk about? The appeal is to start a discussion, if National had had someone there they would have learnt that. Can you not discuss issues with others who might hold different views?

  11. TraceyS says:

    Misinformation is not a positive way to start a discussion. I learned from one speaker that NZ has dumped the ETS, for example.

  12. JC says:

    “Do the right not consider the deteriorating state of the world that we are leaving our children an important enough subject to talk about?”

    You lose the argument right there by painting with a ridiculously broad brush. The facts are the developed world is cleaner, greener and less polluted than it was. Eastern Europe has made massive improvement and the rate of Amazon Forest loss is down 60%.

    The underlying reasons for these massive improvements was first awareness followed by being rich enough to do something about it, eg, Brazil’s marked improvement in conservation was brought about by a better economy and more education.

    Parts of China and India may be dreadfully polluted but increasing wealth and education is leading to awareness and much agitation for improvements.

    Long story short, if you want to improve the environment make people rich and educated. If that means extracting carbon and minerals then so be it.. the net gain from such practice can be seen in most 1st world countries as they got rich and developed better environmental practices.

    Conversely, if you want to devastate the global environment.. pursue a “Unicorn” economy like push for impractical wind and solar projects, attempt to drastically reduce carbon dioxide without understanding the dynamics playing out and employ a “we know best” approach with the 3rd world.

    In his current (trade) tour of South America John Key is doing more for the environment than 100 conferences of people with the largest carbon footprints in the World.

    JC

  13. Viv says:

    Who said that? This government’s changes to the ETS have made it unable to do what it should do, ie reduce CO2 emissions. Dropping out of Kyoto means we are banned from trading Kyoto based credits from 2015. Were you at the launch Tracey? JC is pushing misinformation, his claims that everything is getting better are incorrect. Previous comments by him indicate he doesn’t accept anthropogenic global warming, the rest of the 21st century will prove him wrong.

  14. Viv says:

    That was meant in reply to Tracey

  15. TraceyS says:

    Yes, I was there for part of it.

  16. TraceyS says:

    It was one of the older gentlemen. I can’t remember his name.

    Dear, oh dear, Viv, you are not doing a good job of showing that you are open to balanced discussion (re. JC’s comments). That is not misinformation, merely another’s point of view. Quite different to making incorrect statements in public. You do believe in free speech don’t you?

    Truth and openness to others’ views are fundamental to good consultation. We will often hear things we don’t like the sound of – exaggerations and emotionally charged statements. All parties need to be able to look past these to a point. There were certainly things said on Friday, particularly in regard to beef cattle farming that rubbed me up the wrong way, unnecessarily I feel. But other points I have sympathy with. The presenters and organisers need to learn that the way to people’s hearts is not to damn them in the process.

  17. Viv says:

    I doubt that I, or anyone else from Friday, are going to say anything about climate change or water pollution that most of the commenters on this site will take seriously, so I think I’ll just stop.

  18. homepaddock says:

    Viv – for everyone who leaves a comment there are hundreds who read and don’t who will have a range of views.

    I don’t think it is fair to say most commenters don’t take climate change or water pollution seriously. There are however, differences of opinion on both causes and solutions.

  19. JC says:

    We need to get the terminology right here..

    I’m not concerned about my breathing because its fine, therefore I have no “serious” thought about it.

    I’m not concerned about the Global temperature because I have empirical evidence that its only increased a degree in over 100 years, therefore I have no reason to treat it “seriously”.

    But I am both concerned and serious about debunking alarmist claims over climate that lead to spending poor decisions and the enrichment of the proponents.

    JC

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,168 other followers

%d bloggers like this: