NZ Politics - Foreign policy debate

For those of you interested in nz political parties foreign policy views...there is a debate next Wed at Auckland Uni in the OWEN GLENN building. The debate is on the future of NZ foreign policy. Apparently Winston was asked but he declined :>

Speakers are

Labour: Phil Goff
National: Murray McCully
Greens: Keith Locke
Progressives: Jim Anderton
Act: Peter Tashkoff

6:15pm to 8pm, Wednesday 8 October
Fisher & Paykel Appliances Auditorium
Owen G. Glenn Building, 12 Grafton Road

Flyer here:
http://gj3sda.blu.livefilestore.com/...r.pdf?download

entry is free but get there early if you are coming, last time it was packed and speakers get annoyed if you come in while they are on their soap box

Apart from the Greens they're pretty much all the same

how do they handle the heckle then?

dunno actually....ive never seen them get heckled

ACT foreign policy is not the same as labour nats or the greens. they are hard core realists who want an alliance with the US.

Interesting, might come along for a look see.

Two things that I feel are important to New Zealand foreign policy is: 1) Taking full advantage of our close ties with Australia, including an eventual adoption of a single currency (Oceania dollar). Also larger defense spending and cooperative defense operations in the Pacific. 2) A much stronger alliance with the USA, including abolishing our anti nuclear stance, including allowing American warships into our ports.

Rival, I'm a little surprised you see single currency that way - whilst I see the transactional benefits, the decoupling of our monetary policy from our economic cycle strikes me as being a much higher cost

And abolishing the nuclear stance is a removal of a pretty defining point of modern NZ.

I used to think that way, in fact I was initially against it. Then I looked past the short term complications of adaption and realized it's actually quite insignificant in the scheme of things. If the EU can achieve it, so can we.

I envision a strong united Oceania empire in the Pacific. This includes many of the smaller islands around us and not just Australia. The synchronization of economies doesn't need to be chaotic either. Like the EU we can keep our national currencies simultaneously to the new currency in the mid term, until as such a time as it becomes convenient to abandon them.



In my opinion it's the politics of the past. We hold onto it like its all we have that defines us. In an ever changing world where geopolitical relationships are changing, it seems a fairly outdated mentality that will leave us out of important alliances.

I place precedence on cooperating with our allies and being part of a long term missile defence shield strategy, this will mean letting our allies ships into our ports.

If we didn't need nukes when nuclear deterrence was actually valid - the Cold War - why do we need them now, when nuclear deterrence is an irrelevance at best?

Srsly?

Nuclear power is one of the cleanest energy types available and since we are combating Global Warming, I really think we should change our stance on that. And while we are at it, why not let American ships into our ports at the same time?

Nuclear power is not yet clean. It's clean "burning", sure but the waste problem is not yet fixed - hopefully 4th Gen reactors in 15 years or so will be though.

And that nuclear ban is rooted in Lange's Oxford Union speech - I'm not yet sure that we yet want to give that up to militarily hop in bed with a nation who willingness to fight wars we abhor has been recently proven. And who doesn't take lightly to allies staying out of a fight they disagree with.

Re nuclear - I would like to think that once 4th Gen plants are available and the waste issue is more under control that we can separate our views on weapons vs power.

The waste product from Nuclear reactors is minuscule. We can store it in deep burial facilities for the time being.

And I am well aware of the history of my country re Lange's Oxford Union speech and that doesn't mean I agree with it.

It was idealistic then, it is idealistic now and the speech changed nothing.

Also letting American ships into our ports does not equate to needing to go to war with them, to suggest otherwise is to commit a logical fallacy.

Neo Cons do not constitute the whole of America.

Seems we're a long ways apart on this so won't go further into it...

Absolutely, It's not like I haven't thought this through in depth.

We are allowed to disagree.

Indeed - I imagine both of us have well-considered positions but when you're starting points are quite different you end up diverging in the endgame.

You have to remember you’re talking to a guy who wants to offer fixed contracts of 10% corporate tax rates, for all who perform R&D in our country, to attract an influx of the worlds companies, create market potential and an avenue for specialization within the evolving global market.

I will readily admit, I am a little ahead of myself here and am likely to draw criticism. But I have a very chess like mentality when it comes to these kinds of things. Just like the FTA with China, I would rather have a trade relationship and an open channel of dialog than none at all, as it leads to a better overall position regardless of our objection to their human rights violations. I mean? if worse comes to worse, we can always pull out in the future.

Having something to pull away from is better than having nothing at all.

The same goes with America, I don’t agree with all of their policies, I mean? I was outspoken in my objection to Iraq, but would rather we were still seen to be participating in global security by acknowledging the pressures they face and accepting some of the responsibility; even if it means nothing more than assisting travel routes by opening our ports for their ships.

I’m not a fan of remaining an isolationist bubble of idealism, smug in our position of geological advantage. I find this increasingly arrogant and a little outdated, each and every year. The facts are, the worlds geopolitical landscape is changing rapidly, and we should identify emerging trends and make changes that will benefit us as they develop.

I agree wtih your point about the anti-nuclear legislation behind held onto by NZ'ers as a matter of identity. But with a country that's still very young and ill-defined in terms of its identity, is this really a bad thing? I think it does define NZ (not all of us, but most of us) as a country, and reinforces the clean green environmental image we are so insistent on.

You sound like a pragmatist Rival which I respect, but I have recently come around to the point of view that ideas do matter in politics. And so it is probably good that NZ hang onto the ideas that define us, rather than adopt an amoral ultra-pragmatist view.

My own foreign policy view (neorealist :> would sit closer to ACT of course...which as a Labour voter is extremely discomforting, heh.

I think it is, especially when as a direct consequence it causes us to isolate ourselves and prevents us from developing closer ties with our allies; the relationships of which, are becoming increasingly more important as the worlds power dynamic changes. You add to this the pressure we now face from climate change and the fact ex Greenpeace founders such as Patrick Moore along with one of the principal icons of the green movement: James Lovelock, creator of the Gaia Hypothesis (viewing the Earth as a single organism), are now rallying behind nuclear power generation as a cleaner alternative, and it becomes increasingly apparent we are letting an outdated ‘principle’ from the cold war era; prevent us from adapting to the times.

What was once a progressive policy is now becoming increasingly conservative.




I think more of us are identifying with our music these days and that this clean green image is being placed increasingly into question when we scrutinise our institutions more critically. For instance hydroelectric power has been found, to not be as environmentally friendly as initially believed [1] and the fact we have 24 operating coal mines in our country that are exporting large quantities of coal to Japan, Chile, China, India and Australia [2] indicates we are not as committed to safe environmental policies as intended.

For the record coal is the main threat to climate because there is not enough carbon in conventional oil or natural gas reserves to double the atmosphere’s carbon dioxide. We can only double the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide through a considerable amount of coal-burning, which is what we seem to be headed toward doing. In fact, it is estimated that potential coal resources are sufficient to enable us not just to double the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but to quadruple or nearly octuple the pre-industrial value. [3]

And while New Zealand only has one coal-fired power station, the 1000 MW Huntly Station, it is not using Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle (“IGCC”) technology, which produces less carbon dioxide per unit of energy produced and burns coal more efficiently than pulverized coal plants. We need to start reviewing our standards and procedures if we want to adhere to this clean green image, our anti nuclear stance could be included in that process.




I am ultra-pragmatist, but remember pragmatists are not anti ‘idea’ per se. We merely consider the practical consequences or real effects to be vital components of an ideas worth. I.e. how it translates into policy or action and what this then causes as a consequence.


References:

1. New Scientist “Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed” http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7046 – 2005

2. New Zealand Government Coal Statistics http://www.med.govt.nz/upload/21472/edf797c.pdf - 1997

3. H-H. Rogner, An Assessment of World Hydrocarbon Resources, 22 Ann Rev Energy Envir 217, 247,
256–57 - 1997

Nine months ago I posted this…


so you all know my thoughts

now work out the $$$ per kwh trapper and see which is better, factoring in of course any carbon credits bought

Did you factor in the cost on the environment from using coal in that narrow cost/benefit analysis?

Nuclear then becomes the superior option. No contest.

yep



but I figure that this is a rather nebulous figure right now and will become more tangible only with time

needless to say the differential longer term may be less over a given period giving nuclear an increasing cost/benefit appeal

Which is exactly what we don't have.

No amount of carbon credits will justify burning coal, in fact as Jim Hansen and Al Gore have rightly stated: there needs to be an international mandate on banning coal use, effective immediately. Al Gore is even condoning civil disobedience at the construction sites of new coal plants. But given an international mandate on coal restriction is realistic, due to it being unreasonable to expect developing nations such as China and India to cooperate in such a treaty, ANYTHING we can do right now to diminish reliance on coal in the developed world, should take priority.

This includes New Zealand reducing our coal exports and closing down our mines as soon as possible

In fact while better than nothing, this is one of my biggest problems with people using ‘carbon credits’ to justify certain ongoing activities like coal use. They think that somehow, by buying a ‘carbon credit’ it will balance out the right to emit the c02 released from burning coal; but the implications on the earths ecosystems doesn’t quite work that way. Let’s dive into this a little deeper. Where exactly does the revenue from carbon credits go? Let’s give two plausible examples: A) Planting trees and B) investing into solar energy. The following will expose the fundamental flaw in using carbon credits as justification.

How long does carbon stay in the atmosphere for compared to how long does it take trees to grow and absorb the equivalent of c02 emitted? Different growth rates for different trees right? but generally the process is very slow. By comparison let’s examine how long c02 stays in the atmosphere for. The fact is that for each kilogram of carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere today; only a small portion will be rapidly absorbed into the ocean. After five hundred to one thousand years of slow uptake by the ocean, fully a quarter of that kilogram will remain in the atmosphere. A portion of that will be taken up by the ocean over the next ten thousand years by slow processes related to ocean sediments, but fully 7 percent of our initial kilogram will stick around for hundreds of thousands of years. [1]

Also unless coal use is decreased or replaced by this new investment into solar energy, we still have not achieved a decrease in aggregate co2 levels. In fact given economic trends, both the need for coal AND alternative energy seem to be increasing simultaneously together. Thus we are deriving little to no benefit and meanwhile the build up of c02 continues.

Reference:

[1] David Archer, Fate of Fossil Fuel CO2 in Geologic Time, 110 J Geophysical Res C09S05 at 5 (2005).

*unrealistic

Check out this 'neat' little counter for the world's largest private-sector coal companies 2008 coal sales.

http://peabodyenergy.com/default-netscape.asp

What is more I suppose you know about this already

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/10/ocean-acidification-conference-monaco.php

Yes and the implications of this are going to be huge. This paper I quote earlier in other threads is applicable: Royal Society "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide" - 2005

http://royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13539

Now that I a Kyoto Protocol I would happily agree too.
All new builds should be halted effective immediately, and all existing plants phased on as tight a schedule as practically possible.

Ha? are like taking the piss or am I too tired and just reading everything all jumbled up like?

And missing out important words like "you" in mid sentence.

I'm going to bed.

uggg, yeah that is a mess. Let em try again...

Now that is a Kyoto Protocol I would happily agree to.
All new builds should be halted effective immediately, and all existing plants phased out on as tight a schedule as practically possible.

Suffering from insomnia and my brain won't switch off as a result of low latency inhibition and brain hemisphere activity becoming stuck, so thought I would make another large scale post while I am still awake and thinking deeply about the subject. Well, we are most certainly in agreement regarding that notion trapper, yet I'm still trying to think up, or figure out, an effective strategy, for us to close down our local coal mines (allegedly 24 of them) and how to deal with the New Zealand companies involved with processing and exporting coal to applicable trading partners and coal dependent nations, such as: Japan, Chile, China and Australia.

There are obviously immediate implications regarding loss of employment and reduction of revenue from diminished right to export. I mean despite it having the most potent and alarming potential on the rate of climate change and the associated damage created; we can't just outright condemn the companies and workers involved in the industry coal mines, like some hysterical environmentalist, who attacks the sector based on principal.

We need to come up with an effective way of making such an implementation a fast pace yet relatively painless process, especially for those directly implicated by such instant ramification inducing policy. Can you imagine the political backlash this will create in our country alone not to mention with our trading partners? I was thinking that we might need to adopt some sort of incremental phase out strategy, where we could initially refuse to export coal to countries that are not using IGCC technology coal mines and thus have the potential benefit of forcing those, directly reliant on our coal exports, to invest into cleaner coal plants and sequestration technology retrofits and maybe manage to retain some of these economically important, trade relationships.

Also regarding the Kyoto Protocol, despite me initially being in support of it and perceiving the JI and CDM mechanisms, as well intended policies. I have recently come to develop a far more cynical and suspicious outlook regarding the potential for defaulting countries (who are failing to met their obligations in the first commitment period) to effectively get themselves out of the situation in the second commitment period, due to the centralized, bottle like nature of the process supervision and acceptance required, not to mention the restrictive penalties imposed on us by the enforcement branch of the compliance committee and the outright ossifying effect this will have on our economy.

I actually think it would be more suitable, efficient and less costly for us (being a nation who is presently failing with our commitment obligations) to pull out of the treaty altogether and instead, immediately ratify The Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, taking responsibility for our own rate of progress, more suited to our present economic circumstances. Where as comparatively, if we choose to stay in this with our present failings, its going to cost us shit loads and will derive little to no benefit.

Fucking dilemma everywhere I look at the moment, its difficult to remain optimistic.

It's not something that we really need to be doing unilaterally - and then having to explain to our trading partners. Think of this as Kyoto as it should have been.

No new coal plants whatsoever – this is essential. Then all existing plants to be phased out asap on some clearly transparent and tightly controlled rate, all coal exports and imports could be restricted to only signatory countries; which leaves the markets open for X years until phase out is complete, and shuts out non-signatories. Next in line would be oil fired power plants or whatever.

The Kyoto Protocol was always destined to cost a lot of money, and it was never going to achieve anything meaningful. Hence why I could never agree or support it.


Don’t know anything about this Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, been away from the Pacific for so long I guess haha, will look it up this afternoon.

Well despite my concern over the political and economic ramifications, this is ultimately what must be done. I am surprised this is not a major political issue presently being argued over, in the election debates in New Zealand at the moment, it dwarfs cutting back on Kiwis-saver in implication.



It took a while for some of us to come around to this notion. The problem is, that one almost needs to be studying the protocol, full time for a fairly committed duration; more suitable for people working in fields such as international law or economics or just having naturally high IQ's to fully understand the implications of its processes. Thus it always seemed it would not be fully understood by the general everyday citizen and thus mostly agreed upon and argued for, out of passionate urgency to do something about the climate crisis.



Well despite the fact you probably already have looked it up by now and despite it not having penalizing mechanisms, the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate is an innovative new AND alternative effort to accelerate the deployment of clean energy technologies.

Partner Countries Include:

Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, and the United States, all have agreed to work together and with private sector partners to meet goals for energy security, national air pollution reduction, and climate change in ways that promote sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction. The Partnership will focus on expanding investment and trade in cleaner energy technologies, goods and services in key market sectors. The Partners have approved eight public-private sector task forces covering:

* Aluminium
* Buildings and Appliances
* Cement
* Cleaner Use of Fossil Energy
* Coal Mining
* Power Generation and Transmission
* Renewable Energy and Distributed Generation
* Steel

The seven partner countries collectively account for more than half of the world's economy, population and energy use, and they produce about 65 percent of the world’s coal, 62 percent of the world’s cement, 52 percent of world’s aluminium, and more than 60 percent of the world’s steel. I think we should jump off this sinking ship and shake hands with our new partners.