This election is being fought over trivia, the truly important issues - global warming, oil depletion, ecological damage to the planet and  overpopulation - have hardly been mentioned. This election, and the next thirty, would not be wasted if they were  fought entirely over these issues, each of which poses a dire and urgent threat and which together have the capacity to overwhelm our society. We have precious little time to deal with them. Have you read Jared Diamond's Collapse, or Ronald Wright's Short History of Progress?. Have you read the UN Millennium Ecosystems Assessment? It contains ".... a stark warning. Human activity is putting such strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted".  Every family should be sent a copy and be required to read it before the election. But if elections continue to be decided on self-interest, then our present electoral system, whereby only those over eighteen years old have the vote, should be reversed, and we should legislate that only those under eighteen can vote - we might then get a sustainable future and a habitable planet.  

An Apology

If it is worth anything at all, here is a heartfelt apology offered to all the world's future children on behalf of my generation. What our generation are doing to our world, and your past, present and future, is not due to ignorance or lack of understanding. That would be pardonable. It is not even due to stupidity, though that would be reprehensible. What we are doing to your world is the logical and inescapable outcome of this: greed, negligence and thoughtlessness, a childlike and utterly misplaced faith in politicians, business and the media, a fatal lack of personal responsibility, but most of all a collective absence of a moral and spiritual concern for you, the children of the future. Now this is unforgivable.

Hurricane Katrina

I copy here a letter written by Murray Ward, published in the Dominion Post following the Katrina Hurricane. I was in the process of writing something rather similar - but Murray's letter was excellent, I hope he doesn't mind me posting it here:

Tax cuts by the United States federal government are apparently part of the reason huricane-prone state Louisiana has not received the funding needed to build better defences to the increasing risk of climate disasters like Hurricane Katrina.

I guess when you actively support and promulgate climate change denial, as this US administration has, it's easy to shift "public good" spending off the page.

This disaster seems particularly pertinent to political debate in New Zealand. We've had a dose of drought and floods during the past few years that should be ringing alarm bells. How well prepared are we and how big is our national "war chest" to support local and regional disaster relief efforts? Perhaps we need another Cullen Super Fund to prepare for these future costs.

We are constantly reminded of the role of agricultural production in our economy and the importance of our equable climate. The values at stake are not trivial.

These questions should cause us to think hard and long, especially those who advocate following the "American way", whether on tax cuts or (not) addressing climate change.



The misery of New Orleans is a microcosm of the sort of difficulties that we, but more especially our children, will be increasingly facing. Hurricane Katrina and its devastation and its economic effects also graphically illustrate many of the themes I have explored over the last few years, and which I have now posted on my internet site.


Much as I would have had the residents of New Orleans, and the surrounding areas, avoid this disaster, I can't think of a more suitable event to bring these matters to public attention. How much warning do we need? But listen to the economists, the politicians and the media. America will soon recover, so they say, the oil price is dropping, the rebuilding of New Orleans will stimulate economic activity etc. etc. - the anodyne reassurances of an uncomprehending clique. I am so afraid that this disaster will not change them, that a lot more suffering is needed and a major economic disaster, and one that actually hurts them personally, before they, and we, finally get the message.

---

Please read the following article, it will explain who I am, what makes me think the way I do, and what I think we should be doing. I have a number of articles on my internet site which explain matters further which follow my article. Please particularly look at articles on taxation, energy, global warming and disparity.


Dear Voter and Family

This page comes to you courtesy of John Monro . I am a 58 year old general practitioner and I live in Hataita, I have been married for 28 years and we have four daughters. I, and my wife Tess, with the help of our community, have done the best we can to try to bring up my girls so they are able to take every opportunity that this wonderful world can offer them. But I have an increasing dread that if we don't deal with the issues I have listed above seriously and urgently, that this work will be wasted, that the world that they inherit from us will be much more difficult and dangerous than the one we inherited from our parents. I would be truly grateful that as part of your contribution to democracy, if you will read this document from beginning to end. Basically I am asking you to do just a bit of homework! Democracy cannot function if you, the voter, don't at least make some effort to understand the issues and arguments being presented to you, and make an attempt to independently confirm what you are told. At the end of the day, having done your homework, you have the duty to vote for which ever candidate and party most truly reflects what you and your family need from the government not only over the next three years but for elections far into the future.

Unfortunately you cannot trust the press, the radio or the television to provide you with this material. There is a commercial imperative that causes this media to downplay the likely effects of these issues, and, I am sorry to say, there is a lack of interest and understanding in reporters and editors. Nor can you trust politicians, don't even trust me. Trust only yourself, once you have independently confirmed what the issues truly are.

I provide a few URLs in this article, but if you proceed to my main links, see below, there are hundreds of links which you can follow. The internet is the only place where you can find the independent information you need. Please, please do take some time before election day to check these out. I cannot imagine that any concerned citizen won't find in some of this material confirmation that these issues do exist, they are overwhelmingly important, that they are urgent, and that they are not being dealt with adequately in this or any other country.

1. Global warming

This issue has been described by Sir David King, science advisor to the UK government, he says "Climate change is the most severe problem we are facing today - it is a far greater threat than terrorism". David King is just one of thousands of eminent scientists and climatologists who have been warning us for years. We cannot continue to ignore them. Click here for the BBC report of David King. 15,000 people died in Europe two years ago in the heat wave, record drought and high temperatures in Europe now are causing misery, similarly in the South West USA. The arctic ice cap is melting as are huge tracts of tundra. Alaska's temperatures this year have been in the high 20's. The BBC news site has a very readable introduction to global warming here. I have posted a letter written to Frank Haden in reply to his article in the Dominion Post denying global warming is a problem. There are many carefully selected and fascinating internet references. You can find it here. It contains replies to the sort of questions that global warming deniers continue to use, they are all questions that have long since been answered.

2. Peak oil.

This is a good example of why you can't trust the media. Have you noticed how much the price of petrol has risen recently? Of course you have, it has risen over 50% in about four years, oil has risen by 300% in the same time. Has this come as a surprise? Because if it has, it shouldn't have. The warning signs of oil depletion, so-called "peak oil" have been around for many years, and a number of experienced petroleum experts have been warning that the early 21st Century might bring about profound economic changes due to peak oil. But have you seen anything in the papers about this until this year, or the TV, or from politicians? Even now we are being reassured this is nothing to worry about though just today we hear of the government having to make plans for the possible sudden loss of oil supply. These reassurances are baseless. Peak oil is occurring, if not this year, within the next 2-3 years, and we will be facing huge social and economic difficulties in reducing our oil consumption by significant amounts - carless days, car sharing, speed limit reductions, taxes on petrol, taxes on large cars, even petrol rationing. Anyone who remembers the 1970s will know what this means, only this time these measures will be permanent and increasingly onerous. And this is just the start, increased prices of everything from plastics to fertiliser, computers to air-fares, and food to building have mostly still to filter through our economy. We have already left dealing with this issue grievously late and the likelihood of major economic and social mischief is frighteningly high. Check the Peak Oil or the Sustainable Energy Forum sites for more information, or the many other sites mentioned on these pages.

3. Environmental Degradation

You must read the Millennium Ecosystems Assessment Report of the United Nations. This document can be downloaded from here Download the Board summary. I think every human being on the planet should be provided with a copy, and be forced to read it. So much for the media, most of you will not even know it exists.
"At the heart of this assessment is a stark warning. Human activity is putting such a strain on the natural functions of the Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystem to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted"

4. Overpopulation.

To New Zealanders this may not seem a concern, but it is a simple fact that the sheer numbers of people are the major cause of our impact on the planet. As developing countries seek to gain the wealth and life-style of our country, and why shouldn't they, we are straining the planet's resources to breaking point. Peak oil will bring the urgency of this home to you, but it also applies to agriculture, fisheries, desertification, deforestation etc. The world would have to be three times its present size to accommodate our present population having a similar standard of living as we have. We are finding even in New Zealand how a rapidly increasing population is putting strain on our infrastructure, transport, power, beaches and land. The government tells us that we need 150 MW of new power generation every year, this is unsustainable, it is the equivalent of the proposed giant Makara wind power project every two years, for as long as anyone can foresee. I would like to see immigration reduced to reasonable levels, and our overseas aid increased from 0.25% of our GDP to 1%, to meet international commitments and to fund more effective family planning programmes in the developing world, along with all the other functions of the aid programme.

5. Nuclear Proliferation

New Zealand is doing its best here, and we should continue our opposition to nuclear weapons, and nuclear power. We should use our good reputation in this area to further nuclear disarmament. The Bush administration have been hypocritical in regard to nuclear arms, whilst threatening Iran with force, the administration have been seeking to renew their weapons, develop nuclear block busters, etc. My internet site has an entry about this, see Update 4.

Local Issues

Very briefly, tax cuts are not an option. We have unavoidable, major and urgent infrastructural investments to make in energy efficiency, public transport and renewable energy - in addition we need to increase funding on health, education and overseas aid. We are talking about an investment of many billions of dollars. We are not an overtaxed nation, we pay about 33% of our GDP in tax. Of the eighteen countries in the OECD that are wealthier than us, only five pay less tax, thirteen pay more, some substantially more. A wealthy country has to keep their population healthy and wise, and the infrastructure in good shape. What business would wish to set up in a country if the work force are unfit, or ill-educated? Or if communication and transport infrastructure was poor? Tax levels are only part of what an ethical company would consider important. I examine this matter in detail here and here.

Future Currents

Recently here in New Zealand a very important report was published by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, entitled "Future Currents", yet I think I would be right that almost none of you have even heard of it - again you are being badly failed by your politicians, commentators and media. This document can be found here http://www.pce.govt.nz , click on shaping our energy future. I think all voters should be required to read this document before voting. In it you will find two diverging scenarios for the future of New Zealand. One is called "Sparking New Designs", the other "Fuelling the Future". There is no comparison between the two options. The scenario "Sparking New Designs" is a vision for a wealthy and sustainable future, the other a recipe for environmental catastrophe and economic ruin. New Zealand still hasn't decided which option to take.

Summary

If you do learn about these issues, my trust is that you will yourself become as concerned as I am. There is a great adventure for us all coming in the near future, within the life-time of the new parliament. It is an adventure we can look forward to, plan for, and together work towards a sustainable and wealthy future. Or it is an adventure that, if we allow it to sneak up on us unawares, will be difficult and dangerous, culminating in an uncertain and possibly catastrophic ending.

Last month we celebrated the sixtieth anniversary of VJ day and the sacrifice of our parents and predecessors in two World Wars. The sacrifice needed from all of us now is in no way comparable to this earlier sacrifice. We won't have to go to war, to get shot or blown up, terrified or imprisoned. In fact there is no sacrifice at all, we need just a change of thinking, a moral or spiritual concern for our children, and an urgent and continuing investment in a sustainable economy and society.

If you have any queries at all about what you have read, or comments, I would be very happy to answer them as best I can, this is my e-mail address j.monro@mac.com

---

Letter to Labour Party worker and activist 11th Sept 05

I post this now (14/2/06) because I just happened to come accross it in reviewing my e-mails. I had forgotten about it. I was sent to a family acquaintance, and a VNP (very nice person) works for the Labour Party and the government. I sent this letter before the election, because of my concerns about the direction the election was taking, the worryingly good performance of National, and the worryingly poor performance of Labour. It encapsulates quite well my thoughts about the direction this country should be going, and the failure of all the parties to really address this issue.

Dear .................,

How are things going? Need I ask? I can imagine your office will be red-hot with activity. I don't want to take too much of your time up, but I am really concerned about the continued good showing of the National Party in the polls. Frankly, it amazes me, that a party led by a man of such indecision and promoting simplistic twenty-year-old quack nostrums to the country, should be ahead in the polls at the moment. It proves a long held opinion of mine that New Zealand is a politically and economically very divided nation. The tax cut agenda in particular is appalling. This country, along with all other countries in the world, faces revolutionary changes, bearing down on us fast. Oil depletion, global warming, ecological damage to the planet, overpopulation etc. Anyway you know the picture, if you've ever checked out my web site, I do go on!

I have to say here that I think Labour have run a very poor campaign. They must have done. Here we have full employment, in fact labour shortages, increasing incomes for important sections of our society, and a great social programme. How can Labour be having such problems?

I think the answer is simple. Labour have allowed National to set too much of the agenda. From tax cuts, to the original Orewa speech, which split off the Maori support for Labour, to competing on student support, funding for roading etc. What I have missed from both party leaders is a real vision for the future, and by that I mean for the next generations. I have missed any feeling that the New Zealand Labour Party is proud of its progressive policies, and that the simple nostrums of yesterday are no longer appropriate for today's interconnected world and multicultural society. The problem for Labour is that in some areas its own record is not that good. Particularly energy policy has been very poor. The Kyoto protocol for instance, and policies around global warming are barely distinguishable from National. I know that National wish to withdraw from Kyoto, but is the Labour party aware that countries that have signed up to Kyoto could subject New Zealand goods to carbon tariffs? Philippe Sands who visited Wellington earlier this year gave a lecture to the Law Society which I attended. Philippe Sands is a renowned international lawyer, he wrote a book, Lawless World,  excoriating the US and the UK and Australia about their disregard for international law. But more of interest here is that he also had a hand in drawing up the Kyoto agreement. I asked him exactly this question, what would be the consequence of New Zealand's withdrawal from Kyoto, if National were to be elected? He said he had been thinking about this himself on his flight over from Australia,  that there is nothing to stop National doing this, but he was also quite emphatic that other signatory members would be quite at liberty to impose carbon tariffs on our goods. He couldn't estimate the cost of this, he isn't an economist, but he said it could easily cost a great deal more than the nominal savings from withdrawing. 

But Labour's own record on Kyoto is pathetic. From a promised gain of credits to a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars, shows some distinct carelessness. The subsidising of gas generation and the subsidising of oil and gas exploration, the promotion of coal fired generation, the promise to spend billions of dollars on roads, lack of action in regard to energy efficiency and gas-guzzling vehicles, high levels of immigration, and a failure in forestry policy, these are all things that make it difficult for Labour to criticise National. Yet energy issues are going to be among the most important issues facing the planet in the next generations. In fact far from the government discouraging oil use, our imports of oil have risen 20% in three years, and the cost from $1 billion to $3.1 billion, and the price of oil has already risen since. Any decrease in the value of our dollar will see oil imports at $4 billion or more. (More than our total meat exports) If we were to start importing LNG one energy analyst has stated that our energy imports would be over $8 billion - this would literally beggar our economy. Labour have seriously weakened their Kyoto stance by not taking this issue much more seriously. We have seen perhaps in Hurricane Katrina and the forest fires in Portugal a foretaste of the problems facing us all. Of course National's policies are even worse, withdrawing from Kyoto, cutting the price of petrol, which is absurd, and building more motorways, and here I should admit that Labour have been trying hard to resuscitate  a moribund rail network and invest in public transport. Energy policies are crying out for a long term and sustainable strategy, but I am sorry to say Labour's own poor record makes it hard for Labour to distinguish itself from National. And if you have any doubt about the need for such a strategy, read the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment's own report "Future Currents". It is my opinion that this is the single most important document published in New Zealand for at least thirty years, but no-one seems to have even heard of it. It should be compulsory reading for every politician, farmer and business person in New Zealand. It hasn't even been mentioned in this election, and its neglect is appalling. Why bother to pay the Commissioner's salary if no-one is going to take any notice anyway? (And I often make the same remark in regard to global warming, why pay the millions or billions of dollars that we do to the science and research of the environment and the atmosphere if we're not going to take any notice of the results?)

I think though that Labour has a good record in trying to improve the lot of the lower paid and the beneficiaries, after the dreadful times they had in the nineties. But there is still a lot to do. The disparity of wealth and income in New Zealand is one of the world's highest, and this is a country that used to pride itself on its egalitarianism. You should be shouting this improvement from the roof-tops, yet you seem almost apologetic.  Tax cuts as proposed by National will undo a lot of the effort you have made to make this a more egalitarian society. But further,  you should be aiming to do more. If you read the United Nations Human Development Report, we are very much one of the world's more economically unequal nations, on a par with the UK, Italy, Australia but much worse than Finland, Japan, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, and even France and Canada. In fact there are only four countries with greater economic disparity than us in the OECD, two are richer and two are poorer. But there are fully eighteen countries more egalitarian and all but five of these are richer.(The five exceptions are Spain, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Korea) The figures speak for themselves. But if you correct for our relatively lower income, we don't do quite so badly, we are sixth in the world. What about having a stated goal that we will be number one corrected for wealth? Egalitarian societies generally are more socially cohesive and happier, and we can see what happens in economically divided nations with the recent example of New Orleans. (And we are not stepping on American's susceptibilities here, many Americans are looking very hard now at their own society) But all the gains you have made over the last few years are threatened if Don Brash gets in. I think you must spell out to the population your long term goals in this regard - of course you will find some vociferous opposition to this, but such opposition won't be voting for you anyway. In other words, you must be true to your own beliefs. You must spell it out to the voters that a more inclusive society is a richer society and that the experience of other countries around the world proves this. Also it just isn't true that we are an overtaxed nation, most of the world's wealthier countries pay proportionately more tax than we do. It so happens that Australia and the US pay less, but most European countries do pay higher taxes, are more egalitarian and are considerably wealthier. 

Also the Maori issue. Labour have suffered, and deservedly if I may say so, by alienating their Maori support over the seabed and foreshore issue. For Helen Clark to refer to the Maori party as the "last cab in the rank" is short sighted and unfortunate. Whether we Europeans and other races like it or not, the Maori population is increasing as a proportion of our population, and we need to keep our communications open with the Maori people. I think it is a great shame that Labour has allowed this issue to cause the problems it has. 

Similarly crime and punishment. I don't think Labour have attacked Brash's simplistic lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key attitude sufficiently strongly. The problem for you, I suppose, is that most New Zealanders themselves seem to share this attitude. I think you need to check out the figures. New Zealand locks away a greater proportion of its citizens than nearly any other OECD nation, it is appalling frankly. Yet there is no proof that this makes any difference in crime statistics. Also how are National proposing to pay for extra prisons, prison officers, and policemen with their tax cuts? The figures just don't add up. (Also the next time Don Brash or any National Party candidate goes on about Helen Clark's speeding, you should recall that Don Brash said on TV that he didn't see anything wrong about travelling at 110-111 kph - it was in connection with his proposal to take policemen off traffic duty and put them into crime - though of course one of the most murderous groups of New Zealander's is the speeding driver.)

There is of course the Iraq war where Don Brash is very vulnerable, no harm in keeping the pot boiling on this one. I admired Helen Clark's firm and humane stand in this war, the Labour party should be making much more of it and similarly the firm stance taken against the Israeli spies.

Also I have heard nothing from either party following the Parliamentary Justice Committee's findings on the Ellis case, and their recommendation that there should be a Criminal Cases Review Authority. Isn't that worth some thought?

Far too much is made of the loss of people from these shores to Australia. This country has always had many people seek overseas experience and improve their skills there. Some stay, some return. I am an Anglo-Scot myself, where would the world be without the millions of Scots who over the years have emigrated to far lands and built up new societies there? We live now in a global environment, we should be rejoicing that the young people of this country are robust enough, clever enough and spunky enough to improve themselves, their families, their adopted countries, and this country when they return. Our job is to continue to make this country attractive enough to make it a worthwhile place to live. We can never compete in the high salaries, excitement and the choice of environments of overseas, and tax rates for business whilst important is not the be-all and end-all of a decision to set up shop in New Zealand. We can though very much compete in supplying a clean, green land, uncrowded, with room for everyone, peaceful beaches and mountains and lakes, with a well educated and healthy population, a skilled and flexible workforce, and where every one has a place, and takes pride in their place, and where there is good communication and transport infrastructure - this costs money, but it is a wise investment for the future, tax cuts will do nothing to help this. We will loose many of our own, but will gain many other countries' own. Labour should get a list of names of successful immigrants to these shores and use it to defend itself against the narrow-minded charges of National, but Labour needs to take on board this way of thinking itself, about this new world, and not treat the matter so defensively and parochially. 

I would like to have seen a much greater focus on our international obligations and the problems for the United Nations. We should be taking some leadership in the UN and helping that organisation in trying to achieve it's Millennium Development Goals, and in overcoming its recent difficulties, and in resisting the continued assaults on the organisation from the United States. In addition we should be taking much more seriously the Millennial Ecosystems Assessment Report (Living Beyond Our Means) and make this document part of our commitment to the future. As part of this process we should be increasing our overseas aid budget immediately to 0.7% GDP.  If we can supposedly afford tax cuts then we can certainly afford to do this (I think the cost would be about $500 million) Labour should be taking leadership here, it will be part of what will become the middle ground in years to come, and it will differentiate Labour as an internationally responsible and outward looking administration as against the inward looking National policies. We should be explaining this to the electorate as enlightened self-interest, as what is the point of claiming we are looking to our children's future if the world outside New Zealand is slipping in to chaos?

I have been in the process of writing this letter for a couple of days. But I was very interested to read the thoughts of Rod Oram in this weekend's Sunday Star Times (Vote for a New Understanding). I have a lot of time for this man, an immigrant who is a credit to his old country and who is making a great contribution to his new one. (The "brain drain" doesn't just work one way). He makes a similar point about this lack of direction, the reestablishment of the middle way, which changes as the years go by. This middle way will start including much more emphasis on environmental and energy matters, foreign policy and social matters related to the mixed society in which we now live. But Rod Oram explains all this very well, and if you haven't read it yet, you should do so. 

Sorry to take up your time. I am really anxious to see that Labour, along with the Greens and the Progressives, continue to take up the reins of power in New Zealand. To me, to see National back in power would be nothing short of disastrous. But to reiterate, I really do sense a lack of direction for the future. Energy issues, global warming, the environment and a new world order are simply the most important issues for all mankind. For our children's sake, we have to give them a planet worth living in, the Greens will help but, realistically, it is Labour itself that must take on this torch, and they have been too lukewarm in doing this. 

Regards,

---