|
Are you a This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| homeowner |
|
39 | 22.41% |
| renter |
|
69 | 39.66% |
| stupid peace of poo poo |
|
66 | 37.93% |
| Total: | 174 votes | ||
|
Chalupa Joe posted:"Kids need to know the value of work" - A banker and politician.
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 10:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:34 |
|
|
Hey Marx, I've sent an email to your Gmail account.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:47
|
|
|
http://thespinoff.co.nz/19-04-2016/you-say-tax-haven-i-say-corruption-port-welcome-to-nz/ Reputation reputation reputation
|
|
#
?
Apr 19, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
To be honest, that's more or less all we've got going for us.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 07:22
|
|
|
Actually on second thoughts, a big long post about lovely trust disclosure regimes is a stupid idea when I can just say "Our Trust record keeping rules are really bad compared to the rules for Companies, but reform isn't a big vote-getter".
Butt Wizard fucked around with this message at 09:36 on Apr 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
So this question might make me look retarded but what exactly is so bad about a company drilling into an aquifer and bottling the water and selling it? The news hasn't really laid out the cons....
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 10:16
|
|
|
Canterbury's aquifers are already over subscribed from the domestic and agricultural users. This is just another gently caress you to people who think maybe we should think about the consequences of sucking every last drop of water from the water table.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
Varkk posted:Canterbury's aquifers are already over subscribed from the domestic and agricultural users. This is just another gently caress you to people who think maybe we should think about the consequences of sucking every last drop of water from the water table. Okay, but part of the deal is that any water taken is replaced, so as far as I can tell it shouldn't make a difference.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
Replaced with what? Gatorade?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 10:45
|
|
|
Probably following in the farmers lead and replacing it with cow piss.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 10:47
|
|
|
klen dool posted:So this question might make me look retarded but what exactly is so bad about a company drilling into an aquifer and bottling the water and selling it? Resource consents give people the right to take a certain amount of water from groundwater aquifers and/or surface water. They pay to get a resource consent but aren't charged for the water they use. Usually its used for agricultural (irrigation or water for stock) or industrial purposes. In this case, some land was sold that had resource consents attached to it. A company bought the land. They intend to use the water they're allowed to draw and bottle it and export it. Honestly its not much different from a guy in Christchurch filling up bottles of water from his tap and selling the water, except on a way, way larger scale. There is a good argument that the way we deal with water could be dealt with much better, especially given how valuable it is - regional councils are giving away millions of dollars worth of fresh water more or less free to farmers and businesses. This case is just way more transparent that hey - the water that we let people take is worth actually quite a lot of money. On top of that - like Varkk said - ECAN has issued resource consents for people to be allowed to take maybe 30% more water than actually exists in Canterbury, and they are doing very little in the way of punishing people when they take more than what they're allowed. Maybe related to the fact that the National Government replaced all of ECans democratically elected officials with their own people.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Replaced with what? Gatorade? it's got electrolytes!
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 11:04
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:Replaced with what? Gatorade? Water, from other sources. Presumably not from the same system of aquifers around Canterbury, because that would be retarded.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 11:21
|
|
|
So does my rear end, but I don't ram it into the dirt and expect people to pay for it. Didn't even make the First Fifteen.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 11:22
|
|
|
Lobsterpillar posted:Resource consents give people the right to take a certain amount of water from groundwater aquifers and/or surface water. They pay to get a resource consent but aren't charged for the water they use. Usually its used for agricultural (irrigation or water for stock) or industrial purposes. Okay, so it's a money thing then - people see where they could be making by selling bottles of water and the citizens of Canterbury think they should have it? It doesn't matter if the water is being sold in bottles or milk or beef or beer, surely. I don't really understand the mechanics of it really, are the aquifers all connected so taking water from this one will drain the others? Also, now that I think about it, if they take and replace the water at the same time then won't they just end up pumping out what they just pumped in? I think we need a sciencetician.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
klen dool posted:Okay, but part of the deal is that any water taken is replaced, so as far as I can tell it shouldn't make a difference. The cost of replacement is borne by the council. http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/regional/301165/would-be-ashburton-water-bottling-company-named The big issue is its ~40 billion litres of water over the life of the consent, which will be shipped off overseas and sold for a premium. The council gets a one off payment for the land with the consent. There are no royalties for the use of the water like with minerals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 11:33
|
|
|
The aquifers are making up for the water draw deficit that rivers and natural run off isn't filling. But the aquifers are closer to a very slow filling reservoir than a river that is being feed by whole mountain ranges. Over drawing on a river means there is no river down stream. Overdrawing on an aquifer means no water for a very long time if ever since the structures holding the water would likely collapse from the missing water. Another problem is like in California, everyone is drawing more than their share let alone paying enough for it. It's the tragedy of the commons. Look at China if you want to see dead rivers that are both over drawn and polluted.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 11:35
|
|
|
Isn't Judith Collins' husband one of the bigwigs at Oravida?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
Taitale posted:The cost of replacement is borne by the council. So the rate payers have to pay to keep the aquifers full so that some company can make money? God drat no wonder they are pissed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 11:44
|
|
|
oohhboy posted:The aquifers are making up for the water draw deficit that rivers and natural run off isn't filling. But the aquifers are closer to a very slow filling reservoir than a river that is being feed by whole mountain ranges. Over drawing on a river means there is no river down stream. Overdrawing on an aquifer means no water for a very long time if ever since the structures holding the water would likely collapse from the missing water. So that means the council HAS to replace the water then, or the aquifers (which serve as a backup to surface water) won't be able to act like a backup, and also they will probably collapse so will never be able to act as a backup. Dayum. I think I get it now. Thank guys!
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 11:46
|
|
|
Why is it always Oravida
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 11:59
|
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:Why is it always Oravida Because business is easier when you have an MP as a partner? Also it isn't oravida in ashburton. They are in the Bay of Plenty and they get 146 million litres a year until 2026. quote:An Bay of Plenty Regional Council spokesperson said Oravida had paid a total $1503 for the consents since 1992, and last year paid $526 in compliance costs. http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/301943/'we're-giving-away-that-water-for-nothing'
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
Not to mention bottled water being one of the biggest loads of bullshit in the world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Midget Fist posted:Not to mention bottled water being one of the biggest loads of bullshit in the world. Tap water tastes all metally 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Not if you live in an area/building with decent pipes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
People seem to care far less about this than when an iwi tries to claim some kind of water rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
well yeah because that's them getting special privileges, duh 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Not if you live in an area/building with decent pipes. I've always lived in shitholes because I can't afford any better, checks out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
You could buy a brita filter, they work pretty well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
It does raise interesting questions about water use though. If the general response to water bottling companies is like this, why hasn't there been a similar issue with Farmers and their irrigation schemes that arguably take more water for nothing? Maybe it's time to look at water rights & starting charging for water use (probably different rates for residential, farming & other commercial enterprises) and put that money into cleaning up rivers & lakes or improving water supplies.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Binkenstein posted:It does raise interesting questions about water use though. If the general response to water bottling companies is like this, why hasn't there been a similar issue with Farmers and their irrigation schemes that arguably take more water for nothing? There has been? That's what all the Canterbury dictatorship, polluted rivers and irrigation dam stuff are about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
Because farmers aren't directly and permanently removing millions of litres from the local system, probably. They can at least argue that some part of their withdrawals go back in, instead of into a bottle sent overseas.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Yeah last time a regional council thought about doing that it was disbanded and replaced with central govt appointed commissioners.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
mirthdefect posted:Because farmers aren't directly and permanently removing millions of litres from the local system, probably. They can at least argue that some part of their withdrawals go back in, instead of into a bottle sent overseas. Farmers taking the water is arguably much worse. They are permanently removing millions of litres and on top of that are adding poo poo tonnes of pollution to the waterways. At least the water bottlers aren't also polluting the gently caress out of everything. gently caress dairy farmers. I hope they all go bankrupt. The greedy cunts. And gently caress national and their behaviour with regards to ecan. (and everything else to be honest)
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 05:02
|
|
|
I was thinking more irrigation, but also about why people weren't up in arms about farmers using water.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 05:16
|
|
|
The Schwa posted:well yeah because that's them getting special privileges, duh Kiwi over Iwi braaaaaaaah.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
ledge posted:
Yeah but that's not really true  We're getting close to the point where there is more plastic in the sea then there are fish
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 05:38
|
|
|
Dragonstoned posted:We're getting close to the point where there is more plastic in the sea then there are fish In terms of mass, or total count? What is one plastic?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
I think it was mass, I can't fully remember the details but it said something along the lines of there currently being 1 tonne of plastic for every 3 tonnes of fish. Whether any of that was true I can't say (I read it on the internet afterall) but after seeing the image results for "plastic bottle pollution" it wouldn't surprise me if it was.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 06:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:34 |
|
|
Makes sense. Wasn't being a dick (perhaps surprisingly), was just curious by which yardstick that was being measured.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2016 06:36
|
|