Planet Rugby Forum

Wilderbeast wrote:

deadduck wrote:Seems like Julie-Ann Genter has been telling fibs (well strictly speaking, what she said is accurate but it's also hugely disingenuous) by claiming that National's transport policy increased the road toll by 50% since 2013

Why'd she choose that particular year, you might ask? Well it just so happens that year had the lowest road toll since 1950.

So the road toll had been decreasing but started to increase once Nationals new policies became embedded?

Dark wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:

deadduck wrote:Seems like Julie-Ann Genter has been telling fibs (well strictly speaking, what she said is accurate but it's also hugely disingenuous) by claiming that National's transport policy increased the road toll by 50% since 2013

Why'd she choose that particular year, you might ask? Well it just so happens that year had the lowest road toll since 1950.

So the road toll had been decreasing but started to increase once Nationals new policies became embedded?

The fourth column is deaths. You be the judge of better performers

Funny enough, in the 80's most years deaths were in the high 700s (check the link)

And they have got a bit silly in the last couple of Labour govt years (not on site yet)

https://www.transport.govt.nz/mot-resou ... formation/

deadduck wrote:There doesn't need to be an explanation.

In a set of a data like that, even if there is a structural trend, any variation within 3 standard deviations of the mean is considered normal. It can be attributed to random variation with no further explanation.

deadduck wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:

deadduck wrote:Seems like Julie-Ann Genter has been telling fibs (well strictly speaking, what she said is accurate but it's also hugely disingenuous) by claiming that National's transport policy increased the road toll by 50% since 2013

Why'd she choose that particular year, you might ask? Well it just so happens that year had the lowest road toll since 1950.

So the road toll had been decreasing but started to increase once Nationals new policies became embedded?

Are you secretly Chloe Swarbrick

Wilderbeast wrote:

deadduck wrote:

Wilderbeast wrote:

deadduck wrote:Seems like Julie-Ann Genter has been telling fibs (well strictly speaking, what she said is accurate but it's also hugely disingenuous) by claiming that National's transport policy increased the road toll by 50% since 2013

Why'd she choose that particular year, you might ask? Well it just so happens that year had the lowest road toll since 1950.

So the road toll had been decreasing but started to increase once Nationals new policies became embedded?

Are you secretly Chloe Swarbrick

No, I don’t have her intelligence, ambition, or warped sense of positive thinking.

Wilderbeast wrote:A lesbian

Goodness gracious, does her mum know about this?

Wilderbeast wrote:National are to scared to debate her. It’s quite funny.

Dark wrote:Up there in embarrassing

Pretty funny though

Why she didn't fly Air NZ like every other past PM is beyond me.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politi ... reaks-down

Fat Old Git wrote:Didn't JK also take the air force option? Don't think Jacinta is the first PM to do so.

Dark wrote:

Fat Old Git wrote:Didn't JK also take the air force option? Don't think Jacinta is the first PM to do so.

To fly to Aus?

Not from memory.

It is usually Air Force for places awkward for travel.

Don't think Aunty did either

That's not quite right. While Key does use the 757s for official trips, the aircrafts are also put to use for other Defence Force tasks like transporting troops and providing aid relief, such as with Fiji after Cyclone Winston.

​He does appear to be a fan of the planes, however. While Helen Clark only flew on the 757s an average of twice a year during her nine years in office (she preferred commercial airlines), Key took five trips in his first 20 months in office. The Defence Force did not respond to a request for more current figures.

Fat Old Git wrote:I don't blame Helen for preferring commercial flights. Probably more comfortable and best of all more likely to actually get there.

What do we think of the new gun laws? From what I saw briefly yesterday they seem quite sensible.

deadduck wrote:

Fat Old Git wrote:I don't blame Helen for preferring commercial flights. Probably more comfortable and best of all more likely to actually get there.

What do we think of the new gun laws? From what I saw briefly yesterday they seem quite sensible.

If you're talking about the registration, it's another case of imposing more rules and costs on the vast law abiding majority and not really impacting the illegal gun owners who are the ones who tend to commit gun crimes.

Do we really think this will achieve anything beyond heating up the gun black market? It's just populism from the government - a "feel good" policy.

Enzedder wrote:Well, if the "legal" owners are going to dump their guns with the gangs then the buy-back and registration laws seem to be spot on Grouch. Or of course you are talking out of your arse.

Flockwitt wrote:I've got an agenda item that's been put forward for our PTA meeting tonight that is a sign of the times. Is the local gun shop a mental health risk to the school kids?

It hasn't made a difference anywhere else, if you look at the experience of Canada, Australia and the UK - who all have similar registers, it's has placed an enormous compliance cost on lawful firearms users," he said.

"Remember criminal firearms users aren't going to be affected; they don't comply with existing firearms laws.

"The first thing criminals do is file off a gun's serial number so that doesn't get you anywhere."

grouch wrote:An interesting opinion from someone who , perhaps , should be listened to.

It hasn't made a difference anywhere else, if you look at the experience of Canada, Australia and the UK - who all have similar registers, it's has placed an enormous compliance cost on lawful firearms users," he said.

"Remember criminal firearms users aren't going to be affected; they don't comply with existing firearms laws.

"The first thing criminals do is file off a gun's serial number so that doesn't get you anywhere."

Note:
This piece has been pulled/censored from RNZ .

Should we concerned?

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/395 ... ce-officer

UncleFB wrote:

grouch wrote:An interesting opinion from someone who , perhaps , should be listened to.

It hasn't made a difference anywhere else, if you look at the experience of Canada, Australia and the UK - who all have similar registers, it's has placed an enormous compliance cost on lawful firearms users," he said.

"Remember criminal firearms users aren't going to be affected; they don't comply with existing firearms laws.

"The first thing criminals do is file off a gun's serial number so that doesn't get you anywhere."

Note:
This piece has been pulled/censored from RNZ .

Should we concerned?

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/395 ... ce-officer

Huh?

grouch wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

grouch wrote:An interesting opinion from someone who , perhaps , should be listened to.

It hasn't made a difference anywhere else, if you look at the experience of Canada, Australia and the UK - who all have similar registers, it's has placed an enormous compliance cost on lawful firearms users," he said.

"Remember criminal firearms users aren't going to be affected; they don't comply with existing firearms laws.

"The first thing criminals do is file off a gun's serial number so that doesn't get you anywhere."

Note:
This piece has been pulled/censored from RNZ .

Should we concerned?

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/395 ... ce-officer

Huh?

It was available this morning , saved by ourselves , but try finding it now by scrolling through RNZ.

UncleFB wrote:

grouch wrote:

UncleFB wrote:

grouch wrote:An interesting opinion from someone who , perhaps , should be listened to.

It hasn't made a difference anywhere else, if you look at the experience of Canada, Australia and the UK - who all have similar registers, it's has placed an enormous compliance cost on lawful firearms users," he said.

"Remember criminal firearms users aren't going to be affected; they don't comply with existing firearms laws.

"The first thing criminals do is file off a gun's serial number so that doesn't get you anywhere."

Note:
This piece has been pulled/censored from RNZ .

Should we concerned?

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/395 ... ce-officer

Huh?

It was available this morning , saved by ourselves , but try finding it now by scrolling through RNZ.

If it was pulled it would have been a dead link. It's not.

Also, most of my family in the Bay hunt and own weapons and they're not having hissy fits about gun registration like some wannabe NRA member.

Dark wrote:Labour is leaking again

This time 3 years worth of internal polls.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... rcent.html

JB1981 wrote:

Dark wrote:Labour is leaking again

This time 3 years worth of internal polls.

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... rcent.html

The article says it wasn’t leaked by the Government.

The dairy industry and environmentalists are clashing over the proposed 47 percent methane reduction target proposed in the Zero Carbon Bill.

Dairy NZ chief executive Dr Tim Mackle appeared before the Environment Select Committee on Thursday where he urged MPs to reduce the 47 percent target.
He said while Dairy NZ supports the Bill's purpose to develop a framework to reduce emissions, it doesn't support the range of the 2050 gross methane target of 24-47 percent reduction below 2017 levels.
Dairy NZ is proposing the 2050 methane reduction target be set at up to 24 percent and regularly reviewed against robust criteria. Dr Mackle said it's supported by Fonterra and its Shareholders' Council, among others.

"Farmers want to do what is right. They are ready to go on this journey, but they need a fair target that they can buy into. A 47 percent methane reduction target is simply setting farmers up to fail, if the tools are not available."
Dr Mackle said given the lack of consensus - and that New Zealand is "already a low emissions food-producing nation - we think the Government needs to review their approach with respect to the 47 percent target".

Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick - a member of the select committee - asked Dr Mackle if there was a future in which he could see net zero emissions for New Zealand.
He said methane would play a part in that future, but said the 47 percent reduction target would be "going above and beyond what methane should need to contribute".
When asked if Dairy NZ made fair points, Swarbrick told Newshub the perspective brought to the table "was that of Dairy New Zealand and we have a job to go out there and listen to New Zealanders all over the country". "We'll be listening to the submitters and doing everything we can to make sure that we get the most sustainable piece of legislation that improves the wellbeing of New Zealanders that ensures we are creating a climate friendly future."


While Dairy NZ called for the methane target to be lower, Forest & Bird chief executive told the select committee, it should be higher.
"What I want to feature from our submission is if we imagine that we are going to meet any of these targets without making land use change, we're kidding ourselves," he said.
"We heard from Dairy NZ that it would continue the way it has been with incremental tweaking, and this committee needs to reject that approach."
Hague said New Zealand "cannot afford to go easy on methane". He also slammed the Bill's "weakness" around enforceability, urging the committee to make the targets "binding".

Meanwhile, Horticulture NZ argued that the Zero Carbon Bill needs to be amended to include all the Paris Agreement, including safeguarding food production.
New Zealand signed up to the Paris Agreement in 2015, agreeing to keep global average temperatures below 2degC and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5degC.
"The full Agreement makes it quite clear that countries need to find ways to adapt to climate change "in a manner that does not threaten food production," chief executive Mike Chapman said at select committee.

Details of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill, led by Greens co-leader James Shaw, were announced in May.
It includes a 10 percent reduction in biological methane emissions by 2030 with a provisional reduction ranging from 24 percent to 47 percent the aim by 2050.
Earlier this month the Government announced the farming industry would start being taxed on emissions by 2025.

sonic_attack wrote:Dairy is in serious trouble. Perhaps not right now but it's coming. The tide will turn for Dairy worldwide and we're way too heavily invested in it, this whole industry has to wake up, right now.
In 30 years time NZ should really be a lot closer than currently to 100% renewable energy as a conventional power source, we should have transitioned a healthy majority of transport to the fossil fuel alternatives, and be looking to hit 2070 with very near 100% for both.

I'm not entirely sure the Paris Accords afford the NZ Dairy industry carte blanche to use the abundance of water resources, fudge every waterway in the country full of Phosphates and Nitrogen, and what could cause in 30-50 years time an overwhelming majority of NZ's planet f**king emissions just to supply China with infant formula.

Time to face facts New Zealand, our Dairy industry is unsustainable, at least in the guise it is now. It's not progressing us and I personally don't see it improving unless there's some seriously radical change and investment in the whole industry. Something entirely radical and unlike what we understand to be farming, and move production indoors to capture methane for conversion to energy perhaps.
Maybe dairying within the organic parameters, maybe local farmers pooling resources and being more self sufficient within a collective framework than being stand-alone. Maybe just less of it.
Definitely changes on the horizon though.


https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... rgets.html

The dairy industry and environmentalists are clashing over the proposed 47 percent methane reduction target proposed in the Zero Carbon Bill.

Dairy NZ chief executive Dr Tim Mackle appeared before the Environment Select Committee on Thursday where he urged MPs to reduce the 47 percent target.
He said while Dairy NZ supports the Bill's purpose to develop a framework to reduce emissions, it doesn't support the range of the 2050 gross methane target of 24-47 percent reduction below 2017 levels.
Dairy NZ is proposing the 2050 methane reduction target be set at up to 24 percent and regularly reviewed against robust criteria. Dr Mackle said it's supported by Fonterra and its Shareholders' Council, among others.

"Farmers want to do what is right. They are ready to go on this journey, but they need a fair target that they can buy into. A 47 percent methane reduction target is simply setting farmers up to fail, if the tools are not available."
Dr Mackle said given the lack of consensus - and that New Zealand is "already a low emissions food-producing nation - we think the Government needs to review their approach with respect to the 47 percent target".

Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick - a member of the select committee - asked Dr Mackle if there was a future in which he could see net zero emissions for New Zealand.
He said methane would play a part in that future, but said the 47 percent reduction target would be "going above and beyond what methane should need to contribute".
When asked if Dairy NZ made fair points, Swarbrick told Newshub the perspective brought to the table "was that of Dairy New Zealand and we have a job to go out there and listen to New Zealanders all over the country". "We'll be listening to the submitters and doing everything we can to make sure that we get the most sustainable piece of legislation that improves the wellbeing of New Zealanders that ensures we are creating a climate friendly future."


While Dairy NZ called for the methane target to be lower, Forest & Bird chief executive told the select committee, it should be higher.
"What I want to feature from our submission is if we imagine that we are going to meet any of these targets without making land use change, we're kidding ourselves," he said.
"We heard from Dairy NZ that it would continue the way it has been with incremental tweaking, and this committee needs to reject that approach."
Hague said New Zealand "cannot afford to go easy on methane". He also slammed the Bill's "weakness" around enforceability, urging the committee to make the targets "binding".

Meanwhile, Horticulture NZ argued that the Zero Carbon Bill needs to be amended to include all the Paris Agreement, including safeguarding food production.
New Zealand signed up to the Paris Agreement in 2015, agreeing to keep global average temperatures below 2degC and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5degC.
"The full Agreement makes it quite clear that countries need to find ways to adapt to climate change "in a manner that does not threaten food production," chief executive Mike Chapman said at select committee.

Details of the Climate Change Response (Zero Carbon) Amendment Bill, led by Greens co-leader James Shaw, were announced in May.
It includes a 10 percent reduction in biological methane emissions by 2030 with a provisional reduction ranging from 24 percent to 47 percent the aim by 2050.
Earlier this month the Government announced the farming industry would start being taxed on emissions by 2025.

"We don't have the tools"

A man accused of using a road roller to damage vehicles in an incident that injured a number of people in Wellington overnight has appeared in court.

The 47-year-old man appeared in the Hutt Valley District Court on Saturday morning following the midnight melee, in which police responded to what they called reports of a 'steamroller' being used to damage vehicles that had congregated at an industrial site.

JB1981 wrote:They say it was a man, but does anyone know what Judith Collins was up to on Friday night?

https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/11 ... wellington

A man accused of using a road roller to damage vehicles in an incident that injured a number of people in Wellington overnight has appeared in court.

The 47-year-old man appeared in the Hutt Valley District Court on Saturday morning following the midnight melee, in which police responded to what they called reports of a 'steamroller' being used to damage vehicles that had congregated at an industrial site.

sonic_attack wrote:Dairy is in serious trouble. Perhaps not right now but it's coming. The tide will turn for Dairy worldwide and we're way too heavily invested in it, this whole industry has to wake up, right now.
In 30 years time NZ should really be a lot closer than currently to 100% renewable energy as a conventional power source, we should have transitioned a healthy majority of transport to the fossil fuel alternatives, and be looking to hit 2070 with very near 100% for both.

I'm not entirely sure the Paris Accords afford the NZ Dairy industry carte blanche to use the abundance of water resources, fudge every waterway in the country full of Phosphates and Nitrogen, and what could cause in 30-50 years time an overwhelming majority of NZ's planet f**king emissions just to supply China with infant formula.

Time to face facts New Zealand, our Dairy industry is unsustainable, at least in the guise it is now. It's not progressing us and I personally don't see it improving unless there's some seriously radical change and investment in the whole industry. Something entirely radical and unlike what we understand to be farming, and move production indoors to capture methane for conversion to energy perhaps.

Maybe dairying within the organic parameters, maybe local farmers pooling resources and being more self sufficient within a collective framework than being stand-alone. Maybe just less of it.
Definitely changes on the horizon though.