Category: Environmentalism
Launched with appropriate earth-ending prophecies last October, Russell Norman claimed that nothing short of quantitative easing would rescue New Zealand’s economy from cataclysmic consequences. The problem for the Greens was that their new policy was typically lacking in realism. Furthermore, their policy was not quantitative easing at all. Instead it was an inflationary plan to moneterise government debt.
In 1968 the prevailing mental landscape of the western world changed politically and socially. In particular concern for nature led to the growth of self serving taxpayer funded tithe gathering environmental organizations promoting by modern propaganda methods a green religion with its central doctrine a self loathing of humanity. This fed upon itself and led to the mindset - an age of impending catastrophes.
Irresponsible sabotage or keeping the market fully informed? As anyone who has followed politics closely will know, there is no doubt that the coincidentally timed announcement by the Labour and Green parties to nationalise the wholesale electricity industry was designed to materially impact on the sale of Mighty River Power shares.
A lifetime of observation and work in the social sciences has convinced me of one thing. George Orwell was partly wrong in his classic novel 1984. The threats to the open society do not come from above. They come from all around us: from our peers. The oppression is rooted in economic interest and professional capture.
According to a survey carried out in 2010, New Zealand ranked first equal with Australia as the world’s most charitable nation. The World Giving Index, published by the Charities Aid Foundation used a Gallup survey of 195,000 people in 153 nations to assess the extent of charitable activities. It showed that 68 percent of New Zealanders had given money to charity during the last month, 41 percent had volunteered time, and 63 percent had helped a stranger.
A World Bank Report published in 1998 ranked New Zealand second in terms of ‘natural capital, behind Saudi Arabia. However, while we have a wealth of land, minerals, water, and good clean air, our bureaucratic planning and resource management laws have hindered New Zealand’s ability to use many of those resources effectively. The well-being of our communities has suffered as a result.
The Maori Council’s claim over the ownership of New Zealand’s fresh water was a blatant attempt by a powerful political group to seize control of a public good natural resource. New Zealanders are angry about it and so they should be. The opportunistic endeavours by tribal corporations to seize control of public good resources such as air, wind, the electromagnetic spectrum – maybe even sunlight itself – are outrageous but very real.
Many people believe that electricity prices are too high. They find it difficult to understand why, when most of our electricity is generated by old hydropower stations, the price has escalated at well above the rate of inflation since about 2002 when the market first started to function as it was designed to do. They would be right.
In 2003, the late Dr Michael Crichton, a best-selling author with more than 200 million books in print including Jurassic Park and State of Fear, was asked what he thought was the most important challenge facing mankind. He explained: “The greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda. Perceiving the truth has always been a challenge to mankind, but in the information age it takes on a special urgency and importance. We must daily decide whether the threats we face are real, whether the solutions we are offered will do any good, whether the problems we’re told exist are in fact real problems, or non-problems.”
The whole thesis that there is a ‘sustainability’ crisis and that it requires urgent global attention, depends on a substructure of belief in such things as global warming, irreplaceable resource depletion ‘footprints’, and gathering problems of poverty and disease. All of these are, to a greater or lesser extent, disputable, and ought to be disputed, if unnecessary and counter-productive action is to be avoided.
Loading ...
