Rich80105 has gone off-topic again so I here is a new thread with whatThe slash issue concerns me, there has been no effective action taken by any government.
he said (line-prefixed by asterisks) that was off-topic in that thread
but worthy of a response:
*I was amused to hear praise for Christopher Luxon who said that the
*timber industry in the Gisborne area is the only industry in New
*Zealand which socialises the impact of the waste from their
*operations. He seems to be unaware of the effect of run-off from
*farming, and river pollution in many cisties from industry waste
*being discharged - it has been a constant battle for many local
*councils to get rivers cleaned up, and a major reason why 3 Waters is >*needed - as we have seen local Councils are not able to adequately
*prevent the risks we are now aware of relating to severe weather
*events.
What Luxon said about forestry applied to the whole industry
(presumably nationwide) so nothing directly to do with recent weather
bombs. I agree that there are other industries that should be
required to deal with the problems their industrial waste produces.
This is an industrial waste problem - not specifically a Forestry
problem neither does it have any direct link to 3-waters although some >industrial waste does affect waterways.
The solution has to be one that deals with industries cleaning upYes the government and therefore the country was successfully bullied by France.
after themselves. Both Labour and National are yet to recognise let
alone do anything about this. Hopefully they will but in a way that
spreads the costs evenly over the industries affected.
*We are committed to paying money if we do not achieve emissions
*targets - that was accepted when the then National Government signed
*us up to the international agreements, and those commitments have
*been supported by subsequent governments, and just this week again >*committed to by the current Opposition leader.
The founding members of the UN in 1946 ratified the UN Charter:
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/preamble
Since then we have had a number of wars waged by UN members in clear >violation of the UN Charter and without any UN punishment for ignoring
it. Such is the way of international agreements - they are only as
binding as the signatories decide after signing them. NZ, along with
every other nation, can simply renege on any international agreement.
Not good form but this sort of behaviour is fairly widespread so if
our political masters of the past have signed us up to something our
current political masters do not approve of, we can follow the example
of others and renege. We are at a disadvantage though - in the UN we
do not have a veto and in the world in general we can easily and
effectively be targeted with sanctions (anyone remember the aftermath
of the convictions of Marfart and Prieur for the Rainbow Warrior
bombing incident in Auckland, and the French response?).
So "international agreements" are only honoured for as long as it is
in the national interests of signatories with dominant-sized
economies.
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105 has gone off-topic again so I here is a new thread with what
he said (line-prefixed by asterisks) that was off-topic in that thread
but worthy of a response:
*I was amused to hear praise for Christopher Luxon who said that the
*timber industry in the Gisborne area is the only industry in New
*Zealand which socialises the impact of the waste from their
*operations. He seems to be unaware of the effect of run-off from
*farming, and river pollution in many cisties from industry waste
*being discharged - it has been a constant battle for many local
*councils to get rivers cleaned up, and a major reason why 3 Waters is *needed - as we have seen local Councils are not able to adequately
*prevent the risks we are now aware of relating to severe weather
*events.
What Luxon said about forestry applied to the whole industry
(presumably nationwide) so nothing directly to do with recent weather
bombs. I agree that there are other industries that should be
required to deal with the problems their industrial waste produces.
This is an industrial waste problem - not specifically a Forestry
problem neither does it have any direct link to 3-waters although some industrial waste does affect waterways.
The solution has to be one that deals with industries cleaning up
after themselves. Both Labour and National are yet to recognise let
alone do anything about this. Hopefully they will but in a way that
spreads the costs evenly over the industries affected.
*We are committed to paying money if we do not achieve emissions
*targets - that was accepted when the then National Government signed
*us up to the international agreements, and those commitments have
*been supported by subsequent governments, and just this week again *committed to by the current Opposition leader.
The founding members of the UN in 1946 ratified the UN Charter:
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/preamble
Since then we have had a number of wars waged by UN members in clear violation of the UN Charter and without any UN punishment for ignoring
it. Such is the way of international agreements - they are only as
binding as the signatories decide after signing them. NZ, along with
every other nation, can simply renege on any international agreement.
Not good form but this sort of behaviour is fairly widespread so if
our political masters of the past have signed us up to something our
current political masters do not approve of, we can follow the example
of others and renege. We are at a disadvantage though - in the UN we
do not have a veto and in the world in general we can easily and
effectively be targeted with sanctions (anyone remember the aftermath
of the convictions of Marfart and Prieur for the Rainbow Warrior
bombing incident in Auckland, and the French response?).
So "international agreements" are only honoured for as long as it is
in the national interests of signatories with dominant-sized
economies.
--
Crash McBash
Rich80105 has gone off-topic again so I here is a new thread with what
he said (line-prefixed by asterisks) that was off-topic in that thread
but worthy of a response:
*I was amused to hear praise for Christopher Luxon who said that the
*timber industry in the Gisborne area is the only industry in New
*Zealand which socialises the impact of the waste from their
*operations. He seems to be unaware of the effect of run-off from
*farming, and river pollution in many cisties from industry waste
*being discharged - it has been a constant battle for many local
*councils to get rivers cleaned up, and a major reason why 3 Waters is *needed - as we have seen local Councils are not able to adequately
*prevent the risks we are now aware of relating to severe weather
*events.
What Luxon said about forestry applied to the whole industry
(presumably nationwide) so nothing directly to do with recent weather
bombs. I agree that there are other industries that should be
required to deal with the problems their industrial waste produces.
This is an industrial waste problem - not specifically a Forestry
problem neither does it have any direct link to 3-waters although some industrial waste does affect waterways.
The solution has to be one that deals with industries cleaning up
after themselves. Both Labour and National are yet to recognise let
alone do anything about this. Hopefully they will but in a way that
spreads the costs evenly over the industries affected.
*We are committed to paying money if we do not achieve emissions
*targets - that was accepted when the then National Government signed
*us up to the international agreements, and those commitments have
*been supported by subsequent governments, and just this week again *committed to by the current Opposition leader.
The founding members of the UN in 1946 ratified the UN Charter:
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/preamble
Since then we have had a number of wars waged by UN members in clear violation of the UN Charter and without any UN punishment for ignoring
it. Such is the way of international agreements - they are only as
binding as the signatories decide after signing them. NZ, along with
every other nation, can simply renege on any international agreement.
Not good form but this sort of behaviour is fairly widespread so if
our political masters of the past have signed us up to something our
current political masters do not approve of, we can follow the example
of others and renege. We are at a disadvantage though - in the UN we
do not have a veto and in the world in general we can easily and
effectively be targeted with sanctions (anyone remember the aftermath
of the convictions of Marfart and Prieur for the Rainbow Warrior
bombing incident in Auckland, and the French response?).
So "international agreements" are only honoured for as long as it is
in the national interests of signatories with dominant-sized
economies.
On 2023-02-24, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Rich80105 has gone off-topic again so I here is a new thread with what
he said (line-prefixed by asterisks) that was off-topic in that thread
but worthy of a response:
*I was amused to hear praise for Christopher Luxon who said that the *timber industry in the Gisborne area is the only industry in New
*Zealand which socialises the impact of the waste from their
*operations. He seems to be unaware of the effect of run-off from *farming, and river pollution in many cisties from industry waste
*being discharged - it has been a constant battle for many local
*councils to get rivers cleaned up, and a major reason why 3 Waters is *needed - as we have seen local Councils are not able to adequately *prevent the risks we are now aware of relating to severe weather
*events.
What Luxon said about forestry applied to the whole industry
(presumably nationwide) so nothing directly to do with recent weather bombs. I agree that there are other industries that should be
required to deal with the problems their industrial waste produces.
This is an industrial waste problem - not specifically a Forestry
problem neither does it have any direct link to 3-waters although some industrial waste does affect waterways.
The solution has to be one that deals with industries cleaning upThere was a saying that accounts do not know how to add. There is a cost of leaving the slash in on the site, but this is not taken into account, both in the finanical statements and by the public who do not know.
after themselves. Both Labour and National are yet to recognise let
alone do anything about this. Hopefully they will but in a way that spreads the costs evenly over the industries affected.
In a related area, we have removed caged hens eggs off the shelves. It took ten years from we are going to do this, read the public put the pressure on for this to stop.
For many years before that Greenpeace etc spent many years to get the publics opinion.
Until the public is aware of and demands that an industry does not hard the enviornment, leave the place as you found it, the profit motive will reign surpreme.
Cleaning up the stash would increase the timber price, and are the consumers willing to pay the increase to deal with and issue that is not in their back yard?
*We are committed to paying money if we do not achieve emissions
*targets - that was accepted when the then National Government signed
*us up to the international agreements, and those commitments have
*been supported by subsequent governments, and just this week again *committed to by the current Opposition leader.
The founding members of the UN in 1946 ratified the UN Charter:
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/preamble
Since then we have had a number of wars waged by UN members in clear violation of the UN Charter and without any UN punishment for ignoring
it. Such is the way of international agreements - they are only as
binding as the signatories decide after signing them. NZ, along with
every other nation, can simply renege on any international agreement.
Not good form but this sort of behaviour is fairly widespread so if
our political masters of the past have signed us up to something our current political masters do not approve of, we can follow the example
of others and renege. We are at a disadvantage though - in the UN we
do not have a veto and in the world in general we can easily and effectively be targeted with sanctions (anyone remember the aftermath
of the convictions of Marfart and Prieur for the Rainbow Warrior
bombing incident in Auckland, and the French response?).
So "international agreements" are only honoured for as long as it is
in the national interests of signatories with dominant-sized
economies.
The term gentlemens agreement is probably the right term. Agreements are understanding.
On 2023-02-24, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Rich80105 has gone off-topic again so I here is a new thread with what
he said (line-prefixed by asterisks) that was off-topic in that thread
but worthy of a response:
*I was amused to hear praise for Christopher Luxon who said that the
*timber industry in the Gisborne area is the only industry in New
*Zealand which socialises the impact of the waste from their
*operations. He seems to be unaware of the effect of run-off from
*farming, and river pollution in many cisties from industry waste
*being discharged - it has been a constant battle for many local
*councils to get rivers cleaned up, and a major reason why 3 Waters is
*needed - as we have seen local Councils are not able to adequately
*prevent the risks we are now aware of relating to severe weather
*events.
What Luxon said about forestry applied to the whole industry
(presumably nationwide) so nothing directly to do with recent weather
bombs. I agree that there are other industries that should be
required to deal with the problems their industrial waste produces.
This is an industrial waste problem - not specifically a Forestry
problem neither does it have any direct link to 3-waters although some
industrial waste does affect waterways.
The solution has to be one that deals with industries cleaning up
after themselves. Both Labour and National are yet to recognise let
alone do anything about this. Hopefully they will but in a way that
spreads the costs evenly over the industries affected.
There was a saying that accounts do not know how to add. There is a cost of >leaving the slash in on the site, but this is not taken into account, both
in the finanical statements and by the public who do not know.
In a related area, we have removed caged hens eggs off the shelves. It took >ten years from we are going to do this, read the public put the pressure on >for this to stop.
For many years before that Greenpeace etc spent many years to get the
publics opinion.
Until the public is aware of and demands that an industry does not hard the >enviornment, leave the place as you found it, the profit motive will reign >surpreme.
Cleaning up the stash would increase the timber price, and are the consumers >willing to pay the increase to deal with and issue that is not in their back >yard?
The term gentlemens agreement is probably the right term. Agreements are >understanding.
*We are committed to paying money if we do not achieve emissions
*targets - that was accepted when the then National Government signed
*us up to the international agreements, and those commitments have
*been supported by subsequent governments, and just this week again
*committed to by the current Opposition leader.
The founding members of the UN in 1946 ratified the UN Charter:
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/preamble
Since then we have had a number of wars waged by UN members in clear
violation of the UN Charter and without any UN punishment for ignoring
it. Such is the way of international agreements - they are only as
binding as the signatories decide after signing them. NZ, along with
every other nation, can simply renege on any international agreement.
Not good form but this sort of behaviour is fairly widespread so if
our political masters of the past have signed us up to something our
current political masters do not approve of, we can follow the example
of others and renege. We are at a disadvantage though - in the UN we
do not have a veto and in the world in general we can easily and
effectively be targeted with sanctions (anyone remember the aftermath
of the convictions of Marfart and Prieur for the Rainbow Warrior
bombing incident in Auckland, and the French response?).
So "international agreements" are only honoured for as long as it is
in the national interests of signatories with dominant-sized
economies.
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 5:02:46?PM UTC+13, Gordon wrote:
On 2023-02-24, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Rich80105 has gone off-topic again so I here is a new thread with whatThere was a saying that accounts do not know how to add. There is a cost of >> leaving the slash in on the site, but this is not taken into account, both >> in the finanical statements and by the public who do not know.
he said (line-prefixed by asterisks) that was off-topic in that thread
but worthy of a response:
*I was amused to hear praise for Christopher Luxon who said that the
*timber industry in the Gisborne area is the only industry in New
*Zealand which socialises the impact of the waste from their
*operations. He seems to be unaware of the effect of run-off from
*farming, and river pollution in many cisties from industry waste
*being discharged - it has been a constant battle for many local
*councils to get rivers cleaned up, and a major reason why 3 Waters is
*needed - as we have seen local Councils are not able to adequately
*prevent the risks we are now aware of relating to severe weather
*events.
What Luxon said about forestry applied to the whole industry
(presumably nationwide) so nothing directly to do with recent weather
bombs. I agree that there are other industries that should be
required to deal with the problems their industrial waste produces.
This is an industrial waste problem - not specifically a Forestry
problem neither does it have any direct link to 3-waters although some
industrial waste does affect waterways.
The solution has to be one that deals with industries cleaning up
after themselves. Both Labour and National are yet to recognise let
alone do anything about this. Hopefully they will but in a way that
spreads the costs evenly over the industries affected.
In a related area, we have removed caged hens eggs off the shelves. It took >> ten years from we are going to do this, read the public put the pressure on >> for this to stop.
For many years before that Greenpeace etc spent many years to get the
publics opinion.
Until the public is aware of and demands that an industry does not hard the >> enviornment, leave the place as you found it, the profit motive will reign >> surpreme.
Cleaning up the stash would increase the timber price, and are the consumers >> willing to pay the increase to deal with and issue that is not in their back >> yard?
The slash should just become another product as it will have value. Should only increase forestry companys profits ...
The term gentlemens agreement is probably the right term. Agreements are
*We are committed to paying money if we do not achieve emissions
*targets - that was accepted when the then National Government signed
*us up to the international agreements, and those commitments have
*been supported by subsequent governments, and just this week again
*committed to by the current Opposition leader.
The founding members of the UN in 1946 ratified the UN Charter:
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/preamble
Since then we have had a number of wars waged by UN members in clear
violation of the UN Charter and without any UN punishment for ignoring
it. Such is the way of international agreements - they are only as
binding as the signatories decide after signing them. NZ, along with
every other nation, can simply renege on any international agreement.
Not good form but this sort of behaviour is fairly widespread so if
our political masters of the past have signed us up to something our
current political masters do not approve of, we can follow the example
of others and renege. We are at a disadvantage though - in the UN we
do not have a veto and in the world in general we can easily and
effectively be targeted with sanctions (anyone remember the aftermath
of the convictions of Marfart and Prieur for the Rainbow Warrior
bombing incident in Auckland, and the French response?).
So "international agreements" are only honoured for as long as it is
in the national interests of signatories with dominant-sized
economies.
understanding.
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:52:27 -0800 (PST), John BowesUtter political bullshit so typical of Shaw and his fanatical little accolytes like you Rich! Take your totalitarian bullshit and fuck off to either Russia or North Korea. Take Shaw and the Greens with you, they and you will fit in perfectly there!
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 5:02:46?PM UTC+13, Gordon wrote:
On 2023-02-24, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Rich80105 has gone off-topic again so I here is a new thread with what >> > he said (line-prefixed by asterisks) that was off-topic in that thread >> > but worthy of a response:There was a saying that accounts do not know how to add. There is a cost of
*I was amused to hear praise for Christopher Luxon who said that the
*timber industry in the Gisborne area is the only industry in New
*Zealand which socialises the impact of the waste from their
*operations. He seems to be unaware of the effect of run-off from
*farming, and river pollution in many cisties from industry waste
*being discharged - it has been a constant battle for many local
*councils to get rivers cleaned up, and a major reason why 3 Waters is >> > *needed - as we have seen local Councils are not able to adequately
*prevent the risks we are now aware of relating to severe weather
*events.
What Luxon said about forestry applied to the whole industry
(presumably nationwide) so nothing directly to do with recent weather >> > bombs. I agree that there are other industries that should be
required to deal with the problems their industrial waste produces.
This is an industrial waste problem - not specifically a Forestry
problem neither does it have any direct link to 3-waters although some >> > industrial waste does affect waterways.
The solution has to be one that deals with industries cleaning up
after themselves. Both Labour and National are yet to recognise let
alone do anything about this. Hopefully they will but in a way that
spreads the costs evenly over the industries affected.
leaving the slash in on the site, but this is not taken into account, both
in the finanical statements and by the public who do not know.
In a related area, we have removed caged hens eggs off the shelves. It took
ten years from we are going to do this, read the public put the pressure on
for this to stop.
For many years before that Greenpeace etc spent many years to get the
publics opinion.
Until the public is aware of and demands that an industry does not hard the
enviornment, leave the place as you found it, the profit motive will reign
surpreme.
Cleaning up the stash would increase the timber price, and are the consumers
willing to pay the increase to deal with and issue that is not in their back
yard?
The slash should just become another product as it will have value. Should only increase forestry companys profits ...Until now forestry companies have not seen it as worth collecting -
the value is less than the costs. That is why it will need
legislation, as processing it on the basis currently being suggested
by both Laboutr or National will reduce timber company profits -
although they may be able to increase costs to cover that - there
willbe very high demand for building supplies for more years - thank goodness Labour subsidies apprenticeships to get more young people
into that industry - many pof them will do very well . . .
The term gentlemens agreement is probably the right term. Agreements are >> understanding.
*We are committed to paying money if we do not achieve emissions
*targets - that was accepted when the then National Government signed >> > *us up to the international agreements, and those commitments have
*been supported by subsequent governments, and just this week again
*committed to by the current Opposition leader.
The founding members of the UN in 1946 ratified the UN Charter:
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/preamble
Since then we have had a number of wars waged by UN members in clear
violation of the UN Charter and without any UN punishment for ignoring >> > it. Such is the way of international agreements - they are only as
binding as the signatories decide after signing them. NZ, along with
every other nation, can simply renege on any international agreement. >> > Not good form but this sort of behaviour is fairly widespread so if
our political masters of the past have signed us up to something our
current political masters do not approve of, we can follow the example >> > of others and renege. We are at a disadvantage though - in the UN we
do not have a veto and in the world in general we can easily and
effectively be targeted with sanctions (anyone remember the aftermath >> > of the convictions of Marfart and Prieur for the Rainbow Warrior
bombing incident in Auckland, and the French response?).
So "international agreements" are only honoured for as long as it is
in the national interests of signatories with dominant-sized
economies.
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 10:27:21?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:52:27 -0800 (PST), John BowesUtter political bullshit so typical of Shaw and his fanatical little accolytes like you Rich! Take your totalitarian bullshit and fuck off to either Russia or North Korea. Take Shaw and the Greens with you, they and you will fit in perfectly there!
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 5:02:46?PM UTC+13, Gordon wrote:Until now forestry companies have not seen it as worth collecting -
On 2023-02-24, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Rich80105 has gone off-topic again so I here is a new thread with what >> >> > he said (line-prefixed by asterisks) that was off-topic in that thread >> >> > but worthy of a response:There was a saying that accounts do not know how to add. There is a cost of
*I was amused to hear praise for Christopher Luxon who said that the
*timber industry in the Gisborne area is the only industry in New
*Zealand which socialises the impact of the waste from their
*operations. He seems to be unaware of the effect of run-off from
*farming, and river pollution in many cisties from industry waste
*being discharged - it has been a constant battle for many local
*councils to get rivers cleaned up, and a major reason why 3 Waters is >> >> > *needed - as we have seen local Councils are not able to adequately
*prevent the risks we are now aware of relating to severe weather
*events.
What Luxon said about forestry applied to the whole industry
(presumably nationwide) so nothing directly to do with recent weather >> >> > bombs. I agree that there are other industries that should be
required to deal with the problems their industrial waste produces.
This is an industrial waste problem - not specifically a Forestry
problem neither does it have any direct link to 3-waters although some >> >> > industrial waste does affect waterways.
The solution has to be one that deals with industries cleaning up
after themselves. Both Labour and National are yet to recognise let
alone do anything about this. Hopefully they will but in a way that
spreads the costs evenly over the industries affected.
leaving the slash in on the site, but this is not taken into account, both
in the finanical statements and by the public who do not know.
In a related area, we have removed caged hens eggs off the shelves. It took
ten years from we are going to do this, read the public put the pressure on
for this to stop.
For many years before that Greenpeace etc spent many years to get the
publics opinion.
Until the public is aware of and demands that an industry does not hard the
enviornment, leave the place as you found it, the profit motive will reign
surpreme.
Cleaning up the stash would increase the timber price, and are the consumers
willing to pay the increase to deal with and issue that is not in their back
yard?
The slash should just become another product as it will have value. Should only increase forestry companys profits ...
the value is less than the costs. That is why it will need
legislation, as processing it on the basis currently being suggested
by both Laboutr or National will reduce timber company profits -
although they may be able to increase costs to cover that - there
willbe very high demand for building supplies for more years - thank
goodness Labour subsidies apprenticeships to get more young people
into that industry - many pof them will do very well . . .
The term gentlemens agreement is probably the right term. Agreements are >> >> understanding.
*We are committed to paying money if we do not achieve emissions
*targets - that was accepted when the then National Government signed >> >> > *us up to the international agreements, and those commitments have
*been supported by subsequent governments, and just this week again
*committed to by the current Opposition leader.
The founding members of the UN in 1946 ratified the UN Charter:
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/preamble
Since then we have had a number of wars waged by UN members in clear
violation of the UN Charter and without any UN punishment for ignoring >> >> > it. Such is the way of international agreements - they are only as
binding as the signatories decide after signing them. NZ, along with
every other nation, can simply renege on any international agreement. >> >> > Not good form but this sort of behaviour is fairly widespread so if
our political masters of the past have signed us up to something our
current political masters do not approve of, we can follow the example >> >> > of others and renege. We are at a disadvantage though - in the UN we
do not have a veto and in the world in general we can easily and
effectively be targeted with sanctions (anyone remember the aftermath >> >> > of the convictions of Marfart and Prieur for the Rainbow Warrior
bombing incident in Auckland, and the French response?).
So "international agreements" are only honoured for as long as it is
in the national interests of signatories with dominant-sized
economies.
On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 07:57:30 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 04:02:06 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 10:27:21?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:52:27 -0800 (PST), John BowesUtter political bullshit so typical of Shaw and his fanatical little accolytes like you Rich! Take your totalitarian bullshit and fuck off to either Russia or North Korea. Take Shaw and the Greens with you, they and you will fit in perfectly there!
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 5:02:46?PM UTC+13, Gordon wrote:Until now forestry companies have not seen it as worth collecting -
On 2023-02-24, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Rich80105 has gone off-topic again so I here is a new thread with whatThere was a saying that accounts do not know how to add. There is a cost of
he said (line-prefixed by asterisks) that was off-topic in that thread
but worthy of a response:
*I was amused to hear praise for Christopher Luxon who said that the >>>> >> > *timber industry in the Gisborne area is the only industry in New >>>> >> > *Zealand which socialises the impact of the waste from their
*operations. He seems to be unaware of the effect of run-off from >>>> >> > *farming, and river pollution in many cisties from industry waste >>>> >> > *being discharged - it has been a constant battle for many local
*councils to get rivers cleaned up, and a major reason why 3 Waters is
*needed - as we have seen local Councils are not able to adequately >>>> >> > *prevent the risks we are now aware of relating to severe weather >>>> >> > *events.
What Luxon said about forestry applied to the whole industry
(presumably nationwide) so nothing directly to do with recent weather >>>> >> > bombs. I agree that there are other industries that should be
required to deal with the problems their industrial waste produces. >>>> >> > This is an industrial waste problem - not specifically a Forestry >>>> >> > problem neither does it have any direct link to 3-waters although some
industrial waste does affect waterways.
The solution has to be one that deals with industries cleaning up >>>> >> > after themselves. Both Labour and National are yet to recognise let >>>> >> > alone do anything about this. Hopefully they will but in a way that >>>> >> > spreads the costs evenly over the industries affected.
leaving the slash in on the site, but this is not taken into account, both
in the finanical statements and by the public who do not know.
In a related area, we have removed caged hens eggs off the shelves. It took
ten years from we are going to do this, read the public put the pressure on
for this to stop.
For many years before that Greenpeace etc spent many years to get the >>>> >> publics opinion.
Until the public is aware of and demands that an industry does not hard the
enviornment, leave the place as you found it, the profit motive will reign
surpreme.
Cleaning up the stash would increase the timber price, and are the consumers
willing to pay the increase to deal with and issue that is not in their back
yard?
The slash should just become another product as it will have value. Should only increase forestry companys profits ...
the value is less than the costs. That is why it will need
legislation, as processing it on the basis currently being suggested
by both Laboutr or National will reduce timber company profits -
although they may be able to increase costs to cover that - there
willbe very high demand for building supplies for more years - thank
goodness Labour subsidies apprenticeships to get more young people
into that industry - many pof them will do very well . . .
The term gentlemens agreement is probably the right term. Agreements are
*We are committed to paying money if we do not achieve emissions
*targets - that was accepted when the then National Government signed >>>> >> > *us up to the international agreements, and those commitments have >>>> >> > *been supported by subsequent governments, and just this week again >>>> >> > *committed to by the current Opposition leader.
The founding members of the UN in 1946 ratified the UN Charter:
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/preamble
Since then we have had a number of wars waged by UN members in clear >>>> >> > violation of the UN Charter and without any UN punishment for ignoring
it. Such is the way of international agreements - they are only as >>>> >> > binding as the signatories decide after signing them. NZ, along with >>>> >> > every other nation, can simply renege on any international agreement. >>>> >> > Not good form but this sort of behaviour is fairly widespread so if >>>> >> > our political masters of the past have signed us up to something our >>>> >> > current political masters do not approve of, we can follow the example
of others and renege. We are at a disadvantage though - in the UN we >>>> >> > do not have a veto and in the world in general we can easily and
effectively be targeted with sanctions (anyone remember the aftermath >>>> >> > of the convictions of Marfart and Prieur for the Rainbow Warrior
bombing incident in Auckland, and the French response?).
So "international agreements" are only honoured for as long as it is >>>> >> > in the national interests of signatories with dominant-sized
economies.
understanding.
So you don't agree with Luxon who says that the industry should not be >>'socialising' the expense of waste having to be picked up by the
community. That's OK - for many many years National has stood for
giving subsidies for business from taxation revenue . . . It probably >>takes some people with closed minds a long time to see that this is
not always a good thing . . .
This is the sort of nonsense you continually post - accusing National
of a practice that was long-established since the late 1800s and
therefore supported by all governments until the end of the Muldoon
era. This was done primarily through import licencing - restricting
imports to single companies in return for value-added manufacturing,
or simply prohibiting imports in favour of local manufacturers. I
remember the days when all clothing available in NZ was either made
here from scratch or imported by Bing Harris Sargood and their
predecessors. You had your choice of household appliances but all of
them came from Fisher & Paykel etc, there were two choices of TV
(Philips and Pye) both assembled in Waihi.
This form of corporate welfare (whether by paid subsidy or protected
local markets) was therefore part of our DNA for probably over a
century, yet you choose to make accusations of such nepotism only
against National. You are irrational in favour of Labour/Greens and
other allied parties.
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 04:02:06 -0800 (PST), John Bowes
<bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 10:27:21?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:52:27 -0800 (PST), John BowesUtter political bullshit so typical of Shaw and his fanatical little accolytes like you Rich! Take your totalitarian bullshit and fuck off to either Russia or North Korea. Take Shaw and the Greens with you, they and you will fit in perfectly there!
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 5:02:46?PM UTC+13, Gordon wrote:Until now forestry companies have not seen it as worth collecting -
On 2023-02-24, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Rich80105 has gone off-topic again so I here is a new thread with what >>> >> > he said (line-prefixed by asterisks) that was off-topic in that thread >>> >> > but worthy of a response:There was a saying that accounts do not know how to add. There is a cost of
*I was amused to hear praise for Christopher Luxon who said that the >>> >> > *timber industry in the Gisborne area is the only industry in New
*Zealand which socialises the impact of the waste from their
*operations. He seems to be unaware of the effect of run-off from
*farming, and river pollution in many cisties from industry waste
*being discharged - it has been a constant battle for many local
*councils to get rivers cleaned up, and a major reason why 3 Waters is >>> >> > *needed - as we have seen local Councils are not able to adequately >>> >> > *prevent the risks we are now aware of relating to severe weather
*events.
What Luxon said about forestry applied to the whole industry
(presumably nationwide) so nothing directly to do with recent weather >>> >> > bombs. I agree that there are other industries that should be
required to deal with the problems their industrial waste produces. >>> >> > This is an industrial waste problem - not specifically a Forestry
problem neither does it have any direct link to 3-waters although some >>> >> > industrial waste does affect waterways.
The solution has to be one that deals with industries cleaning up
after themselves. Both Labour and National are yet to recognise let >>> >> > alone do anything about this. Hopefully they will but in a way that >>> >> > spreads the costs evenly over the industries affected.
leaving the slash in on the site, but this is not taken into account, both
in the finanical statements and by the public who do not know.
In a related area, we have removed caged hens eggs off the shelves. It took
ten years from we are going to do this, read the public put the pressure on
for this to stop.
For many years before that Greenpeace etc spent many years to get the >>> >> publics opinion.
Until the public is aware of and demands that an industry does not hard the
enviornment, leave the place as you found it, the profit motive will reign
surpreme.
Cleaning up the stash would increase the timber price, and are the consumers
willing to pay the increase to deal with and issue that is not in their back
yard?
The slash should just become another product as it will have value. Should only increase forestry companys profits ...
the value is less than the costs. That is why it will need
legislation, as processing it on the basis currently being suggested
by both Laboutr or National will reduce timber company profits -
although they may be able to increase costs to cover that - there
willbe very high demand for building supplies for more years - thank
goodness Labour subsidies apprenticeships to get more young people
into that industry - many pof them will do very well . . .
The term gentlemens agreement is probably the right term. Agreements are >>> >> understanding.
*We are committed to paying money if we do not achieve emissions
*targets - that was accepted when the then National Government signed >>> >> > *us up to the international agreements, and those commitments have
*been supported by subsequent governments, and just this week again >>> >> > *committed to by the current Opposition leader.
The founding members of the UN in 1946 ratified the UN Charter:
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/preamble
Since then we have had a number of wars waged by UN members in clear >>> >> > violation of the UN Charter and without any UN punishment for ignoring >>> >> > it. Such is the way of international agreements - they are only as
binding as the signatories decide after signing them. NZ, along with >>> >> > every other nation, can simply renege on any international agreement. >>> >> > Not good form but this sort of behaviour is fairly widespread so if >>> >> > our political masters of the past have signed us up to something our >>> >> > current political masters do not approve of, we can follow the example >>> >> > of others and renege. We are at a disadvantage though - in the UN we >>> >> > do not have a veto and in the world in general we can easily and
effectively be targeted with sanctions (anyone remember the aftermath >>> >> > of the convictions of Marfart and Prieur for the Rainbow Warrior
bombing incident in Auckland, and the French response?).
So "international agreements" are only honoured for as long as it is >>> >> > in the national interests of signatories with dominant-sized
economies.
So you don't agree with Luxon who says that the industry should not be >'socialising' the expense of waste having to be picked up by the
community. That's OK - for many many years National has stood for
giving subsidies for business from taxation revenue . . . It probably
takes some people with closed minds a long time to see that this is
not always a good thing . . .
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 04:02:06 -0800 (PST), John BowesSocialising the expense of waste is just bullshit Rich! Several company's have been fined because of flood deposited forestry waste so your claim is as usual for you just another fucking lie! Take a good look around you Rich instead of just listening to
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 10:27:21?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:So you don't agree with Luxon who says that the industry should not be 'socialising' the expense of waste having to be picked up by the
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:52:27 -0800 (PST), John BowesUtter political bullshit so typical of Shaw and his fanatical little accolytes like you Rich! Take your totalitarian bullshit and fuck off to either Russia or North Korea. Take Shaw and the Greens with you, they and you will fit in perfectly there!
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 5:02:46?PM UTC+13, Gordon wrote:Until now forestry companies have not seen it as worth collecting -
On 2023-02-24, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Rich80105 has gone off-topic again so I here is a new thread with whatThere was a saying that accounts do not know how to add. There is a cost of
he said (line-prefixed by asterisks) that was off-topic in that thread
but worthy of a response:
*I was amused to hear praise for Christopher Luxon who said that the >> >> > *timber industry in the Gisborne area is the only industry in New
*Zealand which socialises the impact of the waste from their
*operations. He seems to be unaware of the effect of run-off from
*farming, and river pollution in many cisties from industry waste
*being discharged - it has been a constant battle for many local
*councils to get rivers cleaned up, and a major reason why 3 Waters is
*needed - as we have seen local Councils are not able to adequately >> >> > *prevent the risks we are now aware of relating to severe weather
*events.
What Luxon said about forestry applied to the whole industry
(presumably nationwide) so nothing directly to do with recent weather
bombs. I agree that there are other industries that should be
required to deal with the problems their industrial waste produces. >> >> > This is an industrial waste problem - not specifically a Forestry
problem neither does it have any direct link to 3-waters although some
industrial waste does affect waterways.
The solution has to be one that deals with industries cleaning up
after themselves. Both Labour and National are yet to recognise let >> >> > alone do anything about this. Hopefully they will but in a way that >> >> > spreads the costs evenly over the industries affected.
leaving the slash in on the site, but this is not taken into account, both
in the finanical statements and by the public who do not know.
In a related area, we have removed caged hens eggs off the shelves. It took
ten years from we are going to do this, read the public put the pressure on
for this to stop.
For many years before that Greenpeace etc spent many years to get the >> >> publics opinion.
Until the public is aware of and demands that an industry does not hard the
enviornment, leave the place as you found it, the profit motive will reign
surpreme.
Cleaning up the stash would increase the timber price, and are the consumers
willing to pay the increase to deal with and issue that is not in their back
yard?
The slash should just become another product as it will have value. Should only increase forestry companys profits ...
the value is less than the costs. That is why it will need
legislation, as processing it on the basis currently being suggested
by both Laboutr or National will reduce timber company profits -
although they may be able to increase costs to cover that - there
willbe very high demand for building supplies for more years - thank
goodness Labour subsidies apprenticeships to get more young people
into that industry - many pof them will do very well . . .
The term gentlemens agreement is probably the right term. Agreements are
*We are committed to paying money if we do not achieve emissions
*targets - that was accepted when the then National Government signed
*us up to the international agreements, and those commitments have >> >> > *been supported by subsequent governments, and just this week again >> >> > *committed to by the current Opposition leader.
The founding members of the UN in 1946 ratified the UN Charter:
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/preamble
Since then we have had a number of wars waged by UN members in clear >> >> > violation of the UN Charter and without any UN punishment for ignoring
it. Such is the way of international agreements - they are only as >> >> > binding as the signatories decide after signing them. NZ, along with >> >> > every other nation, can simply renege on any international agreement.
Not good form but this sort of behaviour is fairly widespread so if >> >> > our political masters of the past have signed us up to something our >> >> > current political masters do not approve of, we can follow the example
of others and renege. We are at a disadvantage though - in the UN we >> >> > do not have a veto and in the world in general we can easily and
effectively be targeted with sanctions (anyone remember the aftermath
of the convictions of Marfart and Prieur for the Rainbow Warrior
bombing incident in Auckland, and the French response?).
So "international agreements" are only honoured for as long as it is >> >> > in the national interests of signatories with dominant-sized
economies.
understanding.
community. That's OK - for many many years National has stood for
giving subsidies for business from taxation revenue . . . It probably
takes some people with closed minds a long time to see that this is
not always a good thing . . .
On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 10:26:32 +1300, Crash <nogood@dontbother.invalid>
wrote:
On Sat, 25 Feb 2023 07:57:30 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> >>wrote:
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 04:02:06 -0800 (PST), John Bowes >>><bowesjohn02@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 10:27:21?PM UTC+13, Rich80105 wrote:
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:52:27 -0800 (PST), John BowesUtter political bullshit so typical of Shaw and his fanatical little accolytes like you Rich! Take your totalitarian bullshit and fuck off to either Russia or North Korea. Take Shaw and the Greens with you, they and you will fit in perfectly there!
<bowes...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, February 24, 2023 at 5:02:46?PM UTC+13, Gordon wrote:Until now forestry companies have not seen it as worth collecting -
On 2023-02-24, Crash <nog...@dontbother.invalid> wrote:
Rich80105 has gone off-topic again so I here is a new thread with whatThere was a saying that accounts do not know how to add. There is a cost of
he said (line-prefixed by asterisks) that was off-topic in that thread
but worthy of a response:
*I was amused to hear praise for Christopher Luxon who said that the >>>>> >> > *timber industry in the Gisborne area is the only industry in New >>>>> >> > *Zealand which socialises the impact of the waste from their
*operations. He seems to be unaware of the effect of run-off from >>>>> >> > *farming, and river pollution in many cisties from industry waste >>>>> >> > *being discharged - it has been a constant battle for many local >>>>> >> > *councils to get rivers cleaned up, and a major reason why 3 Waters is
*needed - as we have seen local Councils are not able to adequately >>>>> >> > *prevent the risks we are now aware of relating to severe weather >>>>> >> > *events.
What Luxon said about forestry applied to the whole industry
(presumably nationwide) so nothing directly to do with recent weather
bombs. I agree that there are other industries that should be
required to deal with the problems their industrial waste produces. >>>>> >> > This is an industrial waste problem - not specifically a Forestry >>>>> >> > problem neither does it have any direct link to 3-waters although some
industrial waste does affect waterways.
The solution has to be one that deals with industries cleaning up >>>>> >> > after themselves. Both Labour and National are yet to recognise let >>>>> >> > alone do anything about this. Hopefully they will but in a way that >>>>> >> > spreads the costs evenly over the industries affected.
leaving the slash in on the site, but this is not taken into account, both
in the finanical statements and by the public who do not know.
In a related area, we have removed caged hens eggs off the shelves. It took
ten years from we are going to do this, read the public put the pressure on
for this to stop.
For many years before that Greenpeace etc spent many years to get the >>>>> >> publics opinion.
Until the public is aware of and demands that an industry does not hard the
enviornment, leave the place as you found it, the profit motive will reign
surpreme.
Cleaning up the stash would increase the timber price, and are the consumers
willing to pay the increase to deal with and issue that is not in their back
yard?
The slash should just become another product as it will have value. Should only increase forestry companys profits ...
the value is less than the costs. That is why it will need
legislation, as processing it on the basis currently being suggested >>>>> by both Laboutr or National will reduce timber company profits -
although they may be able to increase costs to cover that - there
willbe very high demand for building supplies for more years - thank >>>>> goodness Labour subsidies apprenticeships to get more young people
into that industry - many pof them will do very well . . .
The term gentlemens agreement is probably the right term. Agreements are
*We are committed to paying money if we do not achieve emissions >>>>> >> > *targets - that was accepted when the then National Government signed
*us up to the international agreements, and those commitments have >>>>> >> > *been supported by subsequent governments, and just this week again >>>>> >> > *committed to by the current Opposition leader.
The founding members of the UN in 1946 ratified the UN Charter: >>>>> >> >
https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/preamble
Since then we have had a number of wars waged by UN members in clear >>>>> >> > violation of the UN Charter and without any UN punishment for ignoring
it. Such is the way of international agreements - they are only as >>>>> >> > binding as the signatories decide after signing them. NZ, along with >>>>> >> > every other nation, can simply renege on any international agreement.
Not good form but this sort of behaviour is fairly widespread so if >>>>> >> > our political masters of the past have signed us up to something our >>>>> >> > current political masters do not approve of, we can follow the example
of others and renege. We are at a disadvantage though - in the UN we >>>>> >> > do not have a veto and in the world in general we can easily and >>>>> >> > effectively be targeted with sanctions (anyone remember the aftermath
of the convictions of Marfart and Prieur for the Rainbow Warrior >>>>> >> > bombing incident in Auckland, and the French response?).
So "international agreements" are only honoured for as long as it is >>>>> >> > in the national interests of signatories with dominant-sized
economies.
understanding.
So you don't agree with Luxon who says that the industry should not be >>>'socialising' the expense of waste having to be picked up by the >>>community. That's OK - for many many years National has stood for
giving subsidies for business from taxation revenue . . . It probably >>>takes some people with closed minds a long time to see that this is
not always a good thing . . .
This is the sort of nonsense you continually post - accusing National
of a practice that was long-established since the late 1800s and
therefore supported by all governments until the end of the Muldoon
era. This was done primarily through import licencing - restricting >>imports to single companies in return for value-added manufacturing,
or simply prohibiting imports in favour of local manufacturers. I
remember the days when all clothing available in NZ was either made
here from scratch or imported by Bing Harris Sargood and their >>predecessors. You had your choice of household appliances but all of
them came from Fisher & Paykel etc, there were two choices of TV
(Philips and Pye) both assembled in Waihi.
This form of corporate welfare (whether by paid subsidy or protected
local markets) was therefore part of our DNA for probably over a
century, yet you choose to make accusations of such nepotism only
against National. You are irrational in favour of Labour/Greens and
other allied parties.
You forget that the Muldoonism era ended with a Labour Government
that
went overboard in the other direction, but lessons were learned by
Labour at least. Both Labour and National have turned from overtly >centralised control of the sort you have described,
but National still
sticks to more centralised control than Labour, and in particular they
favour what has been called "crony capitalism". That resulted in the >appointment of Fletchers to both set the timetable and contract to do
work in Christchurch which slowed down the recovery as they would not
start work until their supply chain could deliver - in a later
government Labour changed the system to make it easier to import
competing products for wall-board in particular. But the crony
capitalism is a way of National delivering value to political donors -
a good example is the electricity industry which was designed to
deliver profit to the initial shareholders (as was the case for a
number of other sell offs of state owned assets), but in thecase of >electricity set up a framework that encourages short term planning,
and was designed to deliver higher returns to shareholders than the
low risk of the companies warrants. For electricity, you have a
choince in a limited market of picking which company will move
fasterest to have the highest costs again . . . Not liking that
system is not irrational.
I was praising Luxon for breaking out of that model in saying that
forestry should not pass the costs of waste on to consumers; I agree
with him, but it is a contrast to the normal National approach.
In the
case of forestry, a requirmenet to clean up all slash as they go is
now almost inevitable, but it may well result in a decline of one of
the industries that employed a lot of people in Hawke Bay / Wairoa / >Gisborne. There is no hiding from the reality that there are some hard >decisions to be made.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 106:31:12 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,407 |