Planet Rugby Forum

koroke hangareka wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:

koroke hangareka wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:Was an interesting chap. He was based at Canterbury and taught the politics of class, gender and race. Read today that he died in 2001 from a brain tumor in Sydney.

I recall he once told me that he found how I handled my masculinity “very attractive”. Who could blame him?

That's a shame, he seemed like a decent bloke. I read yesterday that Jacob Bercovitch died in 2011, which shook me a bit. I didn't actually like Jacob, but his class was very very good. Getting to that age when all your teachers go and die on you.

That’s a shock also. Who was the Palestinian advocate in the department he was always in conflict with?

Edit: Ron McIntyre?

Again that sounds right, though I think I mostly missed that.( It would be hard to overestimate how oblivious I was in my last couple of years at university.)

koroke hangareka wrote:80-85

Seneca of the Night wrote:

RuggaBugga wrote:
Margaret Clark managing to spend the majority of her time pissed made the biggest impresssion on me.

I had a two hour lecture with Margaret Clark the morning Muldoon died, so she just told Muldoon stories for the lecture. She was quite a character. I thought she would be rubbish, but really enjoyed her class. I can't even remember what it was called. 'Talking shit about politics' I think.

Associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter has declared climate change "our generation's WWII" in her defence of proposed car price hikes.

Genter, also Minister for Women, made the declaration on Twitter while defending the Government's proposed fees for cars being imported that don't meet a 'clean car' policy tipped for 2021.

Vehicles that emit over 250 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre (CO2/km) would be considered heavy polluters so importing those vehicles would come with a financial penalty of up to $3000.

On the flip side, new imported vehicles that produce zero emissions - like the Hyundai Ioniq - would be eligible for an $8000 discount, while used zero-emission cars would get $2600 off.

"The climate crisis is the biggest challenge of our time. It's our generation's WWII. We are the first generation to feel its impacts," Genter said.

Dark wrote:FFS

The govt has moved up a notch

Now it says Climate Change is not their generation's "nuclear free moment".

It is the equivalent of WWII

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... -wwii.html

Associate Transport Minister Julie Anne Genter has declared climate change "our generation's WWII" in her defence of proposed car price hikes.

Genter, also Minister for Women, made the declaration on Twitter while defending the Government's proposed fees for cars being imported that don't meet a 'clean car' policy tipped for 2021.

Vehicles that emit over 250 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre (CO2/km) would be considered heavy polluters so importing those vehicles would come with a financial penalty of up to $3000.

On the flip side, new imported vehicles that produce zero emissions - like the Hyundai Ioniq - would be eligible for an $8000 discount, while used zero-emission cars would get $2600 off.

"The climate crisis is the biggest challenge of our time. It's our generation's WWII. We are the first generation to feel its impacts," Genter said.

Enzedder wrote:Forget what they call it TMAB - at least they are doing something.

What would you do? Head - sand - ostrich like the housing crisis?

Dark wrote:

Enzedder wrote:Forget what they call it TMAB - at least they are doing something.

What would you do? Head - sand - ostrich like the housing crisis?

Given we contribute 0.17% of global emissions it doesn't really seem that worth putting too much intense thought into, while all the big contributors do jack.

How much affect do you think dropping our 0.17% by a few 0.01%s will have on global climate change while big emitters don't Enz?

Or do you think the US, China, India, Europe will suddenly wake up because we dropped a few 0.01% off our global emissions from our 0.17% contribution?

Wilderbeast wrote:

Dark wrote:

Enzedder wrote:Forget what they call it TMAB - at least they are doing something.

What would you do? Head - sand - ostrich like the housing crisis?

Given we contribute 0.17% of global emissions it doesn't really seem that worth putting too much intense thought into, while all the big contributors do jack.

How much affect do you think dropping our 0.17% by a few 0.01%s will have on global climate change while big emitters don't Enz?

Or do you think the US, China, India, Europe will suddenly wake up because we dropped a few 0.01% off our global emissions from our 0.17% contribution?

So you think we should try to influence the big contributors to change their thinking while doing fudge all in our backyard?

Righto.

Dark wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:

Dark wrote:

Enzedder wrote:Forget what they call it TMAB - at least they are doing something.

What would you do? Head - sand - ostrich like the housing crisis?

Given we contribute 0.17% of global emissions it doesn't really seem that worth putting too much intense thought into, while all the big contributors do jack.

How much affect do you think dropping our 0.17% by a few 0.01%s will have on global climate change while big emitters don't Enz?

Or do you think the US, China, India, Europe will suddenly wake up because we dropped a few 0.01% off our global emissions from our 0.17% contribution?

So you think we should try to influence the big contributors to change their thinking while doing fudge all in our backyard?

Righto.

Not at all

I am saying we shouldn't start slapping taxes on people for owning vehicles they need to do their jobs (trades), or people that can't afford an electric, while subsidising well off people that can etc

Don't ruin towns economies which are based on resources which are globally piddly.

And concentrate on cleaning our waterways, our rubbish, our recycling, conservation etc which will actually have an effect on NZ, till the big players pull finger

Gordon Bennett wrote:

Dark wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:

Dark wrote:

Enzedder wrote:Forget what they call it TMAB - at least they are doing something.

What would you do? Head - sand - ostrich like the housing crisis?

Given we contribute 0.17% of global emissions it doesn't really seem that worth putting too much intense thought into, while all the big contributors do jack.

How much affect do you think dropping our 0.17% by a few 0.01%s will have on global climate change while big emitters don't Enz?

Or do you think the US, China, India, Europe will suddenly wake up because we dropped a few 0.01% off our global emissions from our 0.17% contribution?

So you think we should try to influence the big contributors to change their thinking while doing fudge all in our backyard?

Righto.

Not at all

I am saying we shouldn't start slapping taxes on people for owning vehicles they need to do their jobs (trades), or people that can't afford an electric, while subsidising well off people that can etc

Don't ruin towns economies which are based on resources which are globally piddly.

And concentrate on cleaning our waterways, our rubbish, our recycling, conservation etc which will actually have an effect on NZ, till the big players pull finger

What a load of old tripe. That's the excuse trotted out by every country that doesn't feel obliged to do anything. With that attitude, the world burns.

guy smiley wrote:

Fat Old Git wrote:
Obviously it's best if you have a market to support that infrastructure, but it would imho be better to target the bigger ticket transport items like trucks etc first. They burn much more fuel than cars and are more likely to have set routes etc that you can plan around recharging.

The market globally is moving rapidly towards renewables generally anyway, with coal and other fossil fuel powered generators falling out of favour as clean tech has become simply cheaper and better.

the same is happening with cars but it's slower as inertia in the market causes drag. Those factors include petro companies lobbying to preserve the profitability of their business and the reluctance of consumers to take up newer tech. Govt moves like the one we're discussing are almost a perfect fit to push the market in a direction that makes the newer tech more viable costwise. Everything else will follow naturally and easily.

China is leaps ahead of everyone here. One of their cities embarked on an EV bus conversion program to help solve pollution and pretty much as a result of that policy move they're now producing more EV buses than the rest of the world combined. Buses are an easy fit as you can incorporate rapid charging in the stop infrastructure... one idea I read about had an overhead docking mechanism the bus lined up and drove into that charged it while it sat at the stop, so the bus was being charged all the way around the route. Similar ideas could be introduced for other transport modes.

It's a great policy initiative for my money. The technology is already out there being used, let alone proved... it's available. We can have it, easily.

Also... we f**king have to do this. Climate change is real. Those who laugh at or deny it deserve to be shot into the sun from large cannons.

Dark wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

Fat Old Git wrote:
Obviously it's best if you have a market to support that infrastructure, but it would imho be better to target the bigger ticket transport items like trucks etc first. They burn much more fuel than cars and are more likely to have set routes etc that you can plan around recharging.

The market globally is moving rapidly towards renewables generally anyway, with coal and other fossil fuel powered generators falling out of favour as clean tech has become simply cheaper and better.

the same is happening with cars but it's slower as inertia in the market causes drag. Those factors include petro companies lobbying to preserve the profitability of their business and the reluctance of consumers to take up newer tech. Govt moves like the one we're discussing are almost a perfect fit to push the market in a direction that makes the newer tech more viable costwise. Everything else will follow naturally and easily.

China is leaps ahead of everyone here. One of their cities embarked on an EV bus conversion program to help solve pollution and pretty much as a result of that policy move they're now producing more EV buses than the rest of the world combined. Buses are an easy fit as you can incorporate rapid charging in the stop infrastructure... one idea I read about had an overhead docking mechanism the bus lined up and drove into that charged it while it sat at the stop, so the bus was being charged all the way around the route. Similar ideas could be introduced for other transport modes.

It's a great policy initiative for my money. The technology is already out there being used, let alone proved... it's available. We can have it, easily.

Also... we f**king have to do this. Climate change is real. Those who laugh at or deny it deserve to be shot into the sun from large cannons.

We have one of the crappiest car fleets on the OECD planet

What will happen is second hand Jap petrol imports will be replaced by second hand Jap electric imports and we end up having to figure a way to get rid of the batteries.

I actually don't have a problem with electric cars, but a bit of realism when it comes to our situation.

We are a rugged country with crap roads (thanks Twyford), not quite ready for 5 million cheap second hand Leafs with crap charging network.

Santa wrote:

Dark wrote:

guy smiley wrote:

Fat Old Git wrote:
Obviously it's best if you have a market to support that infrastructure, but it would imho be better to target the bigger ticket transport items like trucks etc first. They burn much more fuel than cars and are more likely to have set routes etc that you can plan around recharging.

The market globally is moving rapidly towards renewables generally anyway, with coal and other fossil fuel powered generators falling out of favour as clean tech has become simply cheaper and better.

the same is happening with cars but it's slower as inertia in the market causes drag. Those factors include petro companies lobbying to preserve the profitability of their business and the reluctance of consumers to take up newer tech. Govt moves like the one we're discussing are almost a perfect fit to push the market in a direction that makes the newer tech more viable costwise. Everything else will follow naturally and easily.

China is leaps ahead of everyone here. One of their cities embarked on an EV bus conversion program to help solve pollution and pretty much as a result of that policy move they're now producing more EV buses than the rest of the world combined. Buses are an easy fit as you can incorporate rapid charging in the stop infrastructure... one idea I read about had an overhead docking mechanism the bus lined up and drove into that charged it while it sat at the stop, so the bus was being charged all the way around the route. Similar ideas could be introduced for other transport modes.

It's a great policy initiative for my money. The technology is already out there being used, let alone proved... it's available. We can have it, easily.

Also... we f**king have to do this. Climate change is real. Those who laugh at or deny it deserve to be shot into the sun from large cannons.

We have one of the crappiest car fleets on the OECD planet

What will happen is second hand Jap petrol imports will be replaced by second hand Jap electric imports and we end up having to figure a way to get rid of the batteries.

I actually don't have a problem with electric cars, but a bit of realism when it comes to our situation.

We are a rugged country with crap roads (thanks Twyford), not quite ready for 5 million cheap second hand Leafs with crap charging network.

Guy Emily's deacription if a cure for cancer would read like this.

Get some doctors to invent a cure for cancer then give the cure to people who have cancer.

Mr Mike wrote:We need to remember the wise words of Infant Sorrow.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mI4XLhY10VA

Dark wrote:

Mr Mike wrote:We need to remember the wise words of Infant Sorrow.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mI4XLhY10VA

Nah. Don't ruin a towns mines

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmin5WkOuPw

eugenius wrote:

Dark wrote:
All good.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion

Even if some opinions potentially lead to disaster ?

guy smiley wrote: China is leaps ahead of everyone here. One of their cities embarked on an EV bus conversion program to help solve pollution and pretty much as a result of that policy move they're now producing more EV buses than the rest of the world combined. Buses are an easy fit as you can incorporate rapid charging in the stop infrastructure... one idea I read about had an overhead docking mechanism the bus lined up and drove into that charged it while it sat at the stop, so the bus was being charged all the way around the route. Similar ideas could be introduced for other transport modes.

It's a great policy initiative for my money. The technology is already out there being used, let alone proved... it's available. We can have it, easily.

Also... we f**king have to do this. Climate change is real. Those who laugh at or deny it deserve to be shot into the sun from large cannons.

eugenius wrote:Yeah cause why do anything am I right ?

No point .

guy smiley wrote:

Dark wrote:

eugenius wrote:Yeah cause why do anything am I right ?

No point .

Again. No

Just let it happen naturally, without taxing the crap out of people.

Who gets hit by the latest? - Poor in tax trying to buy a car that will be import petrol

Who gains from the latest? - Well off. Buying electric new

Electric cars will come down in price. Just lose the "We have to be the first" crap

Genuine question Eug' and I hope vainly for an answer.

Justify why you agree with our Labour govt subsidising global corporate car companies to make current electric cars viable?

Let your tiny mind explode over this...

you think they'll be taxing the crap out of people by subsidising the purchase price of EVs.

There is no fuel tax generated by EVs so you won't be paying tax for your motoring.

guy smiley wrote:

Dark wrote:

eugenius wrote:Yeah cause why do anything am I right ?

No point .

Again. No

Just let it happen naturally, without taxing the crap out of people.

Who gets hit by the latest? - Poor in tax trying to buy a car that will be import petrol

Who gains from the latest? - Well off. Buying electric new

Electric cars will come down in price. Just lose the "We have to be the first" crap

Genuine question Eug' and I hope vainly for an answer.

Justify why you agree with our Labour govt subsidising global corporate car companies to make current electric cars viable?

Let your tiny mind explode over this...

you think they'll be taxing the crap out of people by subsidising the purchase price of EVs.

There is no fuel tax generated by EVs so you won't be paying tax for your motoring.

guy smiley wrote:Eh?

I was talking to Dark.

Wilderbeast wrote:Smiley’s post makes sense to me

jambanja wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:Smiley’s post makes sense to me

Really? All it does is reinforce what Dark is saying, in fact it helps strengthen the divide. Not only do the wealthy/middle class benefit from subsidised EV’s and the benefits that come with them they then also have the added bonus of not having to pay taxes on fuel, whereas the poor people who can’t afford the EVs will have to carry on paying taxes

Wilderbeast wrote:That’s probably why he said “let your tiny mind explode over this”

This is my read anyway