Rod Oram on Navman's recent history

here.
I have to agree that selling your company for huge profits and trying to make a world wide name for yourself is both challenging and a smart business move for NZ niche players. Also, the experience they have gained (combined with some angel investment cash) should enable a few second generation companies to have a bash at another niche. If we haven't got a decent sized company by the 5th generation or so i'd start to worry about something structural but for the first couple? nah, it was the right decision at the time.

Sustainable NZ issues

in the electricity sector.
Reasonable enough requests from Contact. Don't mention the farming sector though...

Brian Fallow on Climate Change policies

here.
BF is doing a good job at trying to keep things in perspective. I'm still sceptical of the economics not justifying any action 'because it could cost the world billions' (feel free to place little finger on corner of mouth).
i don't know about you but i think there's a few hundred billion being squandered on all sorts of stupid things (i won't even mention the trillions wasted on stupid wars). a slight bit of pressure or emphasis on climate science and energy research within the budgets already in existence is a tangible and proportional response. the fact that 10 years has slipped past is bringing home the cost of inaction - every year delayed in some sort of response means that it needs to be a little bigger when you do actually get around to it.
also, never forget who pays the majority of the bills when it comes to climate research - that schizophrenic society we all have a love/hate relationship with, the US.
oh yeah - if you need some canarys-in-mine to see if your govt is actually doing anything, look for: banning the incandescent lightbulb (or taxing), mandating fuel mileage increases (or taxing) for cars, updating insulation/building practices on new home builds and increasing the % of zero-carbon for your electricity network.

Deborah Coddington on Climate Change

here.
DC doesn't buy into all this stuff. She's found 2 sources that say exactly what she sees around her every day - things are pretty much the same as when i grew up! Climate change? what climate change. I say let's attack the messengers and accuse them of drinking wine...
DC could be forgiven for not trying to understand the issue. it's complicated, extremely specialised and likely to result in change of the status quo. i mean, she'd have to 'google' for some 'webpages' that try and outline what the real issues are. for this to be meaningful, you'd have to like, you know, evaluate 'things' and try and figure out what the consensus opinion is.
oh man! that'd take, like, days! i'm sure DC whips out these herald fluff pieces over a coffee once a week.
i guess if i had to try and get her to understand one thing it'd be 'little changes don't always result in little effects'. understand that and you're halfway toward understanding half the uncertainty in climate change predictions.
not to worry, i'm sure she'll be up in arms about something else by next week.

arrgghh - Aussie beat us to it

here.
by banning incandescent lightbulbs. this is such a no-brainer, i can't believe NZ didn't do it years ago.
now if only we could see a steady rise if petrol prices with the proceeds devoted to R&D and public transport subsidies, a polluter pays tax...
hurry up helen, put your money where your mouth is.

Rod Oram on Helen's sustainability pledge

here.
Pretty much spot on commentary actually...

Helen ties Sustainability to NZ-ness

here. Speech here.

Sustainable NZ = Nuclear-free NZ?

Nice speech.
Remember, the actual revolution begins when incandescent light bulbs are banned outright or taxed into irrelevence, much like smoking...

Fran O'Sullivan looks at both sides of the GHG debate

here.
What does this statement for instance mean?

Other coalition members who have delved into the underlying science claim New Zealand has had negligible warming over the past 50 years and that last year was 0.7C below the figure for 2005.

Nobody suggests that the whole world is going to lock-step itself 0.5 dC warmer. Some places are going to get a whole lot warmer and some are going to get very cold. It's an average. You could also argue that saying 'i'm alright, what's the problem' is exactly the kind of attitude that got us into this mess.
Let's not forget, regardless of climate change's effects over the next 50 years, it is poor countries that will suffer and it will be mostly poor people who die. morality justification is left as an exercise for the reader.
Is climate change real? how the heck would i know? do vaccines work? the MMR debate would imply that people don't like to be told things that conflict with their world-view. the only thing you can do is to ask the experts for their best guess and compile more and more evidence. over time it becomes easier to accept the underlying hypothesis than it is to not accept it.
If you want point-by-point debate on climate change 'stallers' then go to realclimate.org - they'll give you the other 99.9% of climate scientists response to the technoFUD of the stallers far better than i could.
note to FS: if you are going to argue for perspective, dig a little deeper into the issues, the maths is a little more complicated than compound interest or ROI so it's not going to be easy...