NZers and Aussies: Switching it up

[karaddin]

@Jeor I also think Turnbull was significantly left of the majority of his party while Albo at this point is pretty in step with the majority of the Labor caucus. Historically he has been more left but I don't think that's true of where he is any more.

If you want to talk about alternative taxation streams I'm very on board with discussing a land tax that scales with the number of properties owned!

If I was inclined to prayer then I'd be thanking God the Australian people seem a lot less interested in the culture war than the American people are. I agree completely on the coalition thought they could cover a lack of substance with that shit and it completely blew up in their face to the point of it playing a significant role in the loss of multiple blue ribbon seats to the teal independents. Most conservative voters don't want that shit here, it appeals much better to the people that still seem to think they need to protest the no longer existent covid restrictions.

[The Anti-Targ]

NZ govt foolishly introducing a carbon tax on animal emissions by 2025. Driven mostly, IMO, by an ideology that sees all carbon emissions as the same, which scientifically is simply not true. Loading costs on emissions from a closed system in which carbon only spends a relatively short period of time causing warming does not yield a good return. The focus needs to be on fossil origin emission.

[Luzifer's right hand]

4 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

NZ govt foolishly introducing a carbon tax on animal emissions by 2025. Driven mostly, IMO, by an ideology that sees all carbon emissions as the same, which scientifically is simply not true. Loading costs on emissions from a closed system in which carbon only spends a relatively short period of time causing warming does not yield a good return. The focus needs to be on fossil origin emission.

The "closed system" which works by destroying forest in places like Brazil and using and quickly degrading soil in the reclaimed areas to grow animal feed in an unsustainable way? Last time I had a discussion with someone from the "we only feed them gras" faction from NZ soy meal imports alone were ~400000000 kg per year.

The worship of industrial animal agriculture is a weird blind spot for many people from countries like yours. It is a closed delusion system nothing else.

Edited October 13, 2022 by Luzifer's right hand

[The Anti-Targ]

8 hours ago, Luzifer's right hand said:

The "closed system" which works by destroying forest in places like Brazil and using and quickly degrading soil in the reclaimed areas to grow animal feed in an unsustainable way? Last time I had a discussion with someone from the "we only feed them gras" faction from NZ soy meal imports alone were ~400000000 kg per year.

The worship of industrial animal agriculture is a weird blind spot for many people from countries like yours. It is a closed delusion system nothing else.

Complaining about grain (which is less than 20% of feed for dairy cows and 0% +/- a rounding error for beef and seep) is a red herring when talking about enteric methane. The climate change problem from feeding grain instead of grass to cows still comes back to the fossil fuel inputs in the growing, harvesting and distribution of the grain, it has nothing to do with the cows eating the grain and then burping up methane. I have no problem at all with carbon charging the ag sector for its fossil fuel use until it uses other forms of energy for growing, harvesting and distribution. But saying cow and sheep burps are killing the planet is plain nonsense. It's fossil fuels that are the problem 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

The climate change problem with Brazilian deforestation also comes back to fossil fuel use. We need Brazil to leave the Amazon alone so it can continue to be a carbon sink. The release of carbon from deforestation is negligible as a proportion of all the fossil fuel carbon that's been released since industrial coal use began. If we need Brazil to leave the Amazon alone to help deal with climate change, then perhaps we should pay Brazil to leave it alone rather than try to morally beat Brazil into submission. There are of course many non-climate change reasons why Brazil should leave the Amazon alone that carry more weight in terms of the intrinsic value of the Amazon than its involvement in climate change. Fact is, if all South American deforestation stopped today it would have zero impact on climate change without massive reduction in fossil fuel consumption.

So climate change all still comes back to ending the fossil fuel era. 

[karaddin]

I've said the same thing before regarding paying Brazil to leave the Amazon alone. If their natural environment is critical to the health of the planet then it's something we're all using and we should be recognising that, it would also help put a price on some of the externalities that artificially deflate fossil fuel prices.

[Luzifer's right hand]

11 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Complaining about grain (which is less than 20% of feed for dairy cows and 0% +/- a rounding error for beef and seep) is a red herring when talking about enteric methane. The climate change problem from feeding grain instead of grass to cows still comes back to the fossil fuel inputs in the growing, harvesting and distribution of the grain, it has nothing to do with the cows eating the grain and then burping up methane. I have no problem at all with carbon charging the ag sector for its fossil fuel use until it uses other forms of energy for growing, harvesting and distribution. But saying cow and sheep burps are killing the planet is plain nonsense. It's fossil fuels that are the problem 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

The climate change problem with Brazilian deforestation also comes back to fossil fuel use. We need Brazil to leave the Amazon alone so it can continue to be a carbon sink. The release of carbon from deforestation is negligible as a proportion of all the fossil fuel carbon that's been released since industrial coal use began. If we need Brazil to leave the Amazon alone to help deal with climate change, then perhaps we should pay Brazil to leave it alone rather than try to morally beat Brazil into submission. There are of course many non-climate change reasons why Brazil should leave the Amazon alone that carry more weight in terms of the intrinsic value of the Amazon than its involvement in climate change. Fact is, if all South American deforestation stopped today it would have zero impact on climate change without massive reduction in fossil fuel consumption.

So climate change all still comes back to ending the fossil fuel era. 

It is not a red herring. You import food and feed to to animals which is incredible inefficient just to export a lot of it. It is only done for profit nothing else. The amount of soy meal alone you import could supply the protein your population needs twice. That does not even include other feedstock. 20% is a lot when you consider how insanely inefficient animal agriculture is.

Any move to reduce industrial animal agriculture is good for the environment by default even if you look only at the energy wasted on shipping stuff around the planet.

That does not even include other harmful effects like pollution from animal waste products to the unnatural landscapes without significant numbers of trees grazing requires.

Ending animal agriculture and returning a lot of the used land to nature is actually far more feasible in the short term than ending the use of fossil fuels. I mean feasible in the sense that it is theoretically possible not that human civilization is capable of such rational behaviour.

Edited October 14, 2022 by Luzifer's right hand

[Paxter]

Have to laugh at the furore regarding Sydney Catholic Schools' production of School of Rock. The musical featured, among other atrocities, a same-sex couple (gasp!)

We are honestly fucked up as a country for allowing organized religion to capture such a large segment of education services. I am embarrassed when I have to explain this sad state of affairs to inquisitive foreigners. 

Edited October 19, 2022 by Paxter

[Jeor]

To be fair @Paxter, I don't think it reflects the views of many parents or students in the Catholic Schools themselves. Like most of these things, I think it's a beat up of a small vocal minority. The Catholic sector is a large component of the education system but I'm guessing the vast, vast majority of people who send their kids to those schools do so because of the quality of the schooling and not because of the religious background.

As I understand it in NSW, two thirds of students are in government schools and one third are in independent schools. Of those independent schools (mostly faith-based, but also a fair few non-religious schools), the Catholics represent about half of the independent sector. 

33 minutes ago, Paxter said:

We are honestly fucked up as a country for allowing organized religion to capture such a large segment of education services. I am embarrassed when I have to explain this sad state of affairs to inquisitive foreigners. 

I don't believe organised religion has "captured" a large segment of education, they have actually ceded a lot of ground historically. Church schools were the earliest form of organised education and provided those services at scale to the general population that government never did until the 20th century. So their position is historical and not really indicative of religious creep or anything.

It's like saying that the charities sector has been "captured" by religion. It's true, almost all of the largest charities in Australia are faith-based, but that's because those faiths were the ones who actually established them in the first place (dare I say it, religious people can also be very servant-hearted and positive to the community, and that's often their way of living out the charitable parts of whatever doctrine they follow) and did that work when not a lot of others were.

So maybe you need to amend your explanations...

Edited October 19, 2022 by Jeor

[Paxter]

Let's hope they continue to cede ground. Until they have no pernicious influence left.

Oh and I won't be amending my explanations (what a surprise!) "Ceding ground" = ceding an influence that should never have been permitted in the first place. 

ETA: And I have no doubt that most parents of kids in Catholic schools are not practising Catholics. Which underscores my point (raised many times in previous threads) that we should phase out all of their discrimination exemptions. Their client base doesn't even want them to be so fanatical!

ETA2: As for your point that this was a "small vocal minority", well the CEO seems to agree with them:

Quote

“There have been some complaints raised regarding the content of the show and the suitability for some younger members of the audience,” Farley told the Herald. “With the benefit of hindsight, we would not have chosen this particular musical.

Personally I think it's great that they put this musical on and no way should a review of that decision be required. As long as parents were aware of the PG rating - there should be no issue. 

Edited October 20, 2022 by Paxter

[Jeor]

I see you've completely passed over my point about the good work that faith-based groups do! And, historically, have done in the past when governments and irreligious people did nothing.

I also find it a bit odd that you're not going to change your explanation when it is factually inaccurate and melodramatic. Faith-based groups were behind much of education to begin with. It has not swooped in and captured it.

@Paxter, we agree on a lot of things - and you write and think very well on most topics, so let me reassure you I still very much respect you for that. But this characterisation of faith-based groups capturing education, I'm afraid doesn't stack up. Maybe it has done in places like the USA, but it's not the same flavour back here in Australia.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Jeor

[Jeor]

1 hour ago, Paxter said:

Let's hope they continue to cede ground. Until they have no pernicious influence left.

By the way, who decides what is pernicious?

(genuine question: I'm not particular fussed about a choice of musical, and I agree that attitudes towards LGBT issues should improve, but to what extent should faith-based organisations be controlled? How should that standard be chosen?)

[Paxter]

My (lesbian) sister’s threatened dismissal from a Catholic school would say otherwise.

I also faced many issues as a gay student in a Catholic school. 

Fine with your point on “capture”. Let’s just call it “influence”. Is that OK?

[Paxter]

5 minutes ago, Jeor said:

By the way, who decides what is pernicious?

(genuine question: I'm not particular fussed about a choice of musical, and I agree that attitudes towards LGBT issues should improve, but to what extent should faith-based organisations be controlled? How should that standard be chosen?)

Haha how about not being homophobic? It would be a start.

ETA: Also more than happy to concede that faith-based organizations have been a force for good on many occasions. But why shouldn't we hold them to a high standard of behaviour? Including on discrimination?

Edited October 20, 2022 by Paxter

[Jeor]

43 minutes ago, Paxter said:

Fine with your point on “capture”. Let’s just call it “influence”. Is that OK?

Sure! That works for me.

41 minutes ago, Paxter said:

Haha how about not being homophobic? It would be a start.

And yes, I agree on this one too.

42 minutes ago, Paxter said:

ETA: Also more than happy to concede that faith-based organizations have been a force for good on many occasions. 

Great - I fear in various discussions, this point really does get overlooked. Religion is not all bad. Yes, there are some pretty horrific episodes and certain religions are "worse" than others, with cults being particularly bad. But sometimes society forgets that a lot of good is also done, often by everyday believers who aren't that worried about the culture wars and who live their lives in humility and service to others. It's just a shame that this lot don't get the press.

45 minutes ago, Paxter said:

But why shouldn't we hold them to a high standard of behaviour? Including on discrimination?

Yes, they (as well as any organisation) should be held to a high standard of behaviour. If we call this the moral/ethical standard, that is much higher than the legal standard because the gap between them is a wide place. Who gets to "set" that moral/ethical standard and what it is, is a very difficult question for society to answer.

[Paxter]

Let’s not forget that Catholic schools don’t have to meet the legal standard. They are afforded an exemption (the one they would have used to dismiss my sister from her employment). Non faith-based organizations would be committing an offence if they did the same.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Paxter

[karaddin]

3 hours ago, Jeor said:

To be fair @Paxter, I don't think it reflects the views of many parents or students in the Catholic Schools themselves. Like most of these things, I think it's a beat up of a small vocal minority. The Catholic sector is a large component of the education system but I'm guessing the vast, vast majority of people who send their kids to those schools do so because of the quality of the schooling and not because of the religious background.

I agree with this. According to the article I read yesterday it was seen by ~20k students/teachers and parents but the head only had 80 complaint letters to respond to. That's such a tiny percentage that I actually think the media are doing a disservice by reporting on it in the first place, these are fringe bigots and the media reaction makes them seem like a much larger number than they are.

1 hour ago, Jeor said:

I see you've completely passed over my point about the good work that faith-based groups do! And, historically, have done in the past when governments and irreligious people did nothing.

Its a more complex issue than just "well no one else was doing it and they started" when you're talking about areas they have dominated for a long time, and which are much better suited for government funding in the first place. The big one for me here is aged care. There should be adequate government facilities for most of the public that will need it, but defunding of government services has left the sector overwhelmingly in the hands of religious organizations and private businesses that are, shockingly, not great at putting care for their residents above their profits. 

Given the rampant abuse and neglect issues in aged care, it shouldn't be contentious to say that being gay increases the risks of being subject to this in a religious aged care facility without adequate oversight if that's the only facility that is even available to you.

[Paxter]

8 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I agree with this. According to the article I read yesterday it was seen by ~20k students/teachers and parents but the head only had 80 complaint letters to respond to. That's such a tiny percentage that I actually think the media are doing a disservice by reporting on it in the first place, these are fringe bigots and the media reaction makes them seem like a much larger number than they are.

The CEO though has more or less agreed with the letters, apologized and ordered a full review of the musical.

Fringe meets power.

Edited October 20, 2022 by Paxter

[Paxter]

8 minutes ago, karaddin said:

I agree with this. According to the article I read yesterday it was seen by ~20k students/teachers and parents but the head only had 80 complaint letters to respond to. That's such a tiny percentage that I actually think the media are doing a disservice by reporting on it in the first place, these are fringe bigots and the media reaction makes them seem like a much larger number than they are.

Its a more complex issue than just "well no one else was doing it and they started" when you're talking about areas they have dominated for a long time, and which are much better suited for government funding in the first place. The big one for me here is aged care. There should be adequate government facilities for most of the public that will need it, but defunding of government services has left the sector overwhelmingly in the hands of religious organizations and private businesses that are, shockingly, not great at putting care for their residents above their profits. 

Given the rampant abuse and neglect issues in aged care, it shouldn't be contentious to say that being gay increases the risks of being subject to this in a religious aged care facility without adequate oversight if that's the only facility that is even available to you.

Right up there with aged care is child welfare services including adoption services.

[The Anti-Targ]

Interesting we are getting climate change protests blocking our streets in various parts of the country. But for polar opposite reasons.

Farmers are protesting that the govt is doing too much and pushing them too far. Environmentalists are of course protesting that the govt and the rest of us are not doing enough.

I guess when you get people protesting on both sides of an issue the govt is doing about what is can on the matter.

Bit of a clarification on my earlier post about the govt implementing climate change charges on farmers in 2025. Apparently, according to one article I read, the 2025 farmer charging is letting farmers off the hook by not fully exposing them to the emissions trading scheme exposing, which the carbon zero law that was passed a couple of years ago specified that unless an alternative is put in place by 2025 the ag sector would be subject to the full force of the ETS. So the farmers are being cut some slack, and given the whole enteric methane thing is already in law (whether I agree with it or not), I think the 2025 ag emissions charges recently announced would seem to be reasonable rather than foolish as I asserted upthread.

Of course the ag sector would be wanting a complete exemption, and anything less than that is unconscionable and hence worthy of driving tractors up and down the country in protest.

On the Faith-based social services vs govt service, the current opposition seems to have come up with an idea that they want to let rich people fund basic welfare services and support out of the goodness of their charitable hearts rather than govt make sure social welfare is properly funded. I have to admit I didn't read the article, only the headline so there will be detail I missed, but this seems like rather a cynical ploy. If rich people were so genuinely charity minded, then they don't need the govt's permission to fund a lot of social welfare right now. While they can't provide direct payments to people* there is a lot they can do, like funding food banks, providing low cost quality housing, subsidising child care for the working poor etc etc. So why aren't they doing that already?

*Without formal coordination with the govt, which is also making direct payments to people

Edited October 20, 2022 by The Anti-Targ

[karaddin]

25 minutes ago, Paxter said:

The CEO though has more or less agreed with the letters, apologized and ordered a full review of the musical.

Fringe meets power.

Sigh, the one I read didn't include that. Fuck them all.