Water we going to do? (13 Jul, 2017)

Have your say on today's Aardvark Daily column

Water we going to do? (13 Jul, 2017)

Postby aardvark_admin » Thu Jul 13, 2017 10:55 am

This column is archived at: http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2017/0713.shtml

Is my solution to ensuring that one of our most precious natural resources isn't given away to the world's largest soft drink company a good one?

Would it not solve the problem that the government claims is unsolvable -- ie: how to sell water without introducing ownership issues?

Why have they not thought of this (or have they -- and simply chosen to ignore it as an option)?

Or should we simply continue allowing our water to be effectively plundered by a huge US corporation -- while so many NZers suffer?
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: Water we going to do? (13 Jul, 2017)

Postby hagfish » Thu Jul 13, 2017 11:42 am

I think the real cat they want to keep in the bag is pricing water used for irrigation and - in particular - dairy farming. It takes a ton of water (literally, if you ask a vegan) to produce a litre of milk. If cockies had to pay 10c/litre, each litre of milk would cost north of $100.

Apparently, Kiwis guzzle about 500 million litres of soft-drinks and about 300 million litres of beer each year. Surely these are mostly 'water' with a bit of syrup/malt chucked in. Will those that aren't imported attract the tariff, too?

EDIT: Unless it's intended to spark a greater debate about water use, shaking Coke down for 10c/l seems like reaching lazily for a VERY low-hanging fruit.

EXTRA EDIT: Apparently farmers pay 0.014c/L, so upping that to 10c would be pretty exciting.
hagfish
 
Posts: 533
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 10:28 am

Re: Water we going to do? (13 Jul, 2017)

Postby phill » Thu Jul 13, 2017 12:01 pm

a lot of this you have to put at the feet of bullshit billy ... who would have to be either one of the dimmest dimwits we have had in parliament ( and to be fair to the man its a high probability ) or he is as corrupt as they come .. along with cockhead collins ( who is as suss of morals and integrity as we have seen at fort fumble ) and of course shonkey
are they as thick as they appear to be or are they on some take ?

for compensation the answers are not difficult .. both with amount taken .. from nzers .. or exported .. from nz .. where both could attract some charges
to just give it away is something probably not done anywhere else in the world

as are the answers not difficult for the case of corruption


https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2017/03/14/w ... rom-again/
https://thestandard.org.nz/oravida-and- ... -one-owns/
User avatar
phill
 
Posts: 1149
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: Water we going to do? (13 Jul, 2017)

Postby Perry » Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:38 pm

The word 'tariff' would evoke screams, most everywhere. We're a Free Trade country - supposedly.

Resource rental or export levy or royalty, perhaps?
Perry
 
Posts: 345
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Water we going to do? (13 Jul, 2017)

Postby NoBodyInParticular » Thu Jul 13, 2017 1:51 pm

This may be a simplistic take on the issue but cant 'Water' be redefined as a form of National (and crown protected) heritage resource which prevents it from crossing boarders without an explicit permit? If they decide to allow some of it out of our borders then there should be some way of applying a tariff that can then be funneled directly back into facilities or community development that benefits all New Zealand citizens (not just the Iwi minority) which then make the economics of this seem less attractive.
As we are starting to see internationally, clean water will be the new gold in some coming years so giving it away now is irresponsible at best, or blatantly corrupt once this has been brought to their attention (again).
If business logic could be applied to government, the members of parliament have a 'fiduciary duty' to us, the citizens (principal), a breach of this should bring huge professional and personal consequences (damages, loss of privileges and criminal charges).
Unfortunately, this would only work if there was just one set of rules for everyone and alas this really isn't the case.
NoBodyInParticular
 
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2016 11:46 am

Re: Water we going to do? (13 Jul, 2017)

Postby aardvark_admin » Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:18 pm

Perry wrote:The word 'tariff' would evoke screams, most everywhere. We're a Free Trade country - supposedly.

Resource rental or export levy or royalty, perhaps?

I don't think any of our trading partners would scream because this is a tariff that makes their own domestic and export products *more* competitive with ours. Countries only scream about tariffs when they're applied to their exports as they enter a foreign market.
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: Water we going to do? (13 Jul, 2017)

Postby aardvark_admin » Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:20 pm

NoBodyInParticular wrote: the members of parliament have a 'fiduciary duty' to us, the citizens (principal), a breach of this should bring huge professional and personal consequences (damages, loss of privileges and criminal charges).
Unfortunately, this would only work if there was just one set of rules for everyone and alas this really isn't the case.

Nailed it... politicians are already self-exempted from so many of the country's laws that it makes it an insult to call us an egalitarian society.
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: Water we going to do? (13 Jul, 2017)

Postby paulw » Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:36 pm

As soon as you try to extract a cost from water you will have the special people lodging a treaty claim for all that's left of the water who of course would get it and then the cost will be past to you the customers.
paulw
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 8:33 am

Re: Water we going to do? (13 Jul, 2017)

Postby aardvark_admin » Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:48 pm

No.. the water would remain free. The cost of an export license to send it offshore is what would cost money -- hence no treaty claim because no value has been ascribed to the water per se.
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2599
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: Water we going to do? (13 Jul, 2017)

Postby joeseph » Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:54 pm

hagfish wrote: If cockies had to pay 10c/litre, each litre of milk would cost north of $100.


and if power producers had to pay 10c/litre for hydro, methinks the price of power would be somewhat higher also...

Basicly the sysems are currently user pays, but only town-supply consumers are paying anything remotely like what it's actually worth.
Issue is how to address the imbalance without the main benefitters of the resource just passing the pricing on to the end user claiming "costs have risen"
joeseph
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 2:11 pm

Next

Return to Today's column

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron