I like your bass
Helen Clark, to NZ Labour Party conference in Rotorua, 28 October 2006:
Why shouldn’t New Zealand aim to be the first country which is truly sustainable – not by sacrificing our living standards, but by being smart and determined? We can now move to develop more renewable energy, biofuels, public transport alternatives, and minimise, if not eliminate, waste to landfills. We could aim to be carbon neutral. I believe sustainability will be a core value in 21st century social democracy. I want New Zealand to be in the vanguard of making it happen – for our own sakes, and for the sake of our planet. I want sustainability to be central to New Zealand’s unique national identity.
65 responses to “I like your bass”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Interesting. Perhaps she could begin by looking at a sustainable debt culture where we continue writing off interest on 8 billion dollars of debt indefinitely.
Dan, ‘sustainability’ is already a pretty wooly term, I’d say it’s best not to erode it further by broadening it to include e.g. the question of whether student loans should have their interest written off.
Apparantly it was an aspirational speach
Perhaps my commenting here would be more pertinent if I asked what Labour’s reaction, as a party, was to her speech, in this area. Did they boo her down, did they back her up?
It just seems quite a well focussed topic for something that I’ve seen little governmental evidence towards looking at.
A bypass that goes the other way too, please.
So good. Best idea anyone’s had in Wellington since Crocodile bikes.
Perhaps “sustainability” should only refer to environment, but doesn’t DMCC have a point in #1? It seems likely to me that we’ll only learn to care for the environment as we learn to be careful with our money. Or perhaps vice-versa, I dunno. We’re stewards of both, kind of thing. Also, I think either one will involve a wee bit of sacrifice — care always does.
Yes, maybe I was too harsh.
Sustainability is the human economy learning to live well within the non-human ecology.
Dan, Ben, what’s bad about the interest write-off? I haven’t given it much thought, but a. I quite like having my SL interest written off and b. it is an incentive to graduates to remain in the country (as you don’t get it if you quit NZ).
A couple of things:
1. I’m all for living responsibly, but it seems to me (whether this is true or not) that too many of the people (and I don’t mean Matthew or anyone else here) who really drive sustainability (and environmental sensitivity in general) tend to idolise creation. This is not something I’d wish to perpetuate, and it seems to me that Helen’s speech here is an attempt to garner votes from these more than it is a genuine concern for creation/stewardship.
I think sustainability is good, but I certainly don’t believe it should be “central to New Zealand’s unique national identity”.
Rather, sustainability should simply be a by-product of our national identity. What is inherent in our culture is a distinct lack of respect and care for others, for self, and for the resources over which we have – by grace – been granted stewardship. This is apparent in our binge drinking, our irresponsible use of motor vehicles, the decline in people supporting volunteer organisations, etc; the list goes on.
Change the heart of the nation and you will quite likely get environmental sustainability. But you’ll also get so much more.
2. It seems that the pioneering, innovative, and forward-thinking spirit of Helen’s statement here is at odds with the increasingly restrictive legislative attitude of her government. It’s just so much harder to get anything a) done, and b) done properly.
Hmmm.
Well-spoken Dan. 2 and 1 are interchangeable and linked.
Thanks Dan W. I disagree with both points though:
1. If there is any hint of idolizing in the quote, it is the ‘living standards’ which we must under no circumstances have to sacrifice.
I think the general goal of human life is to worship God by looking after each other and the rest of creation, to encourage the flourishing of both. So I think any particular nation’s identity ought to fit in with that.
2. What legislation are you referring to? What do you want to get done that’s more difficult than it ought to be?
Thanks Matt,
Re: Re: 1. Yes, I guess that’s the other side of the coin. We do have higher-than-average living standards in NZ – we take it for granted.
I didn’t necessarily mean that there was any idolizing of creation in the quote. What concerns me is when people put looking after creation before looking after others, or even conserve creation at the expense of caring for people. I believe that caring for people, made in God’s image, should always take priority over caring for creation.
Re: Re: 2. For example; I can’t build a methane digester in my back yard.
Dan W, are you suggesting that people think along the lines of, ‘I was going to go out and work in a soup kitchen but the government’s direction led me to plant trees instead’? I mean, since when were humanitarian care and environmental care mutually exclusive!? Surely, on the contrary, encouraging citizens to focus on one will inevitably tend to eventually lead them to develop concern for the other?
Honestly, it sounds to me like you’re being anti-Labour for the sake of it.
I reckon that sustainability is a sweet objective, if sustainability means living in such a way that the earth’s renewable resources aren’t depleted and damage to the earth is minimised or eliminated. That is a core principle of stewardship and it seems pretty questionable to question it.
I am sceptical of Mrs Peter Davis, though. I suspect her of waving the sustainability flag because she ‘believes sustainability will be a core value in 21st century social democracy’. [NB: National Party environmental policy is beginning to move in the same direction.]
re: 14.
The only reason questions are asked about it is because there has been prolonged, sustained (sustainable?) disregard. To say it’s “questionable to question it” demonstrates a certain (wilful?) level of ignorance to the environmental damage that companies have done (while making astronomical profits). Short term profit has nothing to do with the environmental sustainability as a “core principle of stewardship”.
re: 12.
I really can’t see how the environment has been conserved at the sake of other people. Western European countries (where the voice of environmentalism is strong) don’t seem to have suffered hugely for the enormous amount of money they have spent on environmental issues. I mean really! List some examples…
All of god’s creation is important, not simply the human aspects of it. To prioritise one part over another is simply to make a (common) mistake.
To save trees is as important as saving souls is as important as washing dishes is as important as painting a picture is as important as helping starving people is as important as sitting down and having a laugh and a few drinks is as important as going for a walk on the beach… which is what I shall do now…
Re: 13
I’m not saying they’re mutually exclusive. Nor am I saying we should ignore the environment. Caring for others as a priority means that one will have a healthy, yet secondary, care for the environment. After all, it requires resources to care for people.
Re: 15
I agree that all of creation is important, but I disagree that it is a mistake to prioritise one part. People come first.
I could argue that God sees it the same way. After all, how much of the environment was destroyed/damaged/made extinct as a result of the flood at the expense of saving/preserving mankind?
Painting a picture is as important as helping starving people? I disagree, but surely you’d have to say that helping a starving person would take priority over painting a picture?
Re #16:What resources does it take to care for people please? DSidn’t god also destroy the majority of the people he created with the flood, and didn’t he also save some of every kind of animal in the ark along with humans to take care fo them. Seems like equal destruction/salvation meeted out to me.
Re #15 part two: my thoughts precisely.
By the way, if anyone wants to complain/congratulate Helen or any other of our governing class feel free to come along to our last of Sunday of the month letter writing afternoon. There’ll be pens and paper and envelopes and pots of tea and snacks. Maybe you could direct your ideas about governing our country to the people doing it. Some folks (Sir Ron Oxburgh amongst others) say it’s the best way to effect change in legislation. Even National supporters welcome. 16 Russell Tce Newtown Wellington from one til the tea runs out.
re: 16. “People come first”
What could that possibly mean?
Perhaps you could expand on how that affects your priorities. I am quite unable to engage in that sort of prioritisation…
The oft misquoted Jacques Derrida, (may he rest in peace) wrote:
“I am responsible to anyone (that is to say, to any other) only by failing in my responsibility to all the others, to the ethical or political generality. And I can never justify this sacrifice; I must always hold my peace about it… What binds me to this one or that one, remains finally unjustifiable”
We must all prioritise in the context of our beliefs, values, abilities and the circumstances which confront us. There is always a clamor of responsibilities which we can neither fulfill nor escape. And those we respond to we can only ever partially justify our involvement. And it is inevitable that we will miss out on some things. I do not find any fault in that. I find fault only where we deliberately ignore what we (should) see and fail to act where we could. FWIW I think what should characterize Christians (who try to follow the life of Christ) would be a desire to make sacrifices in the way they establish themselves.
Contributing to the culture of our society via art is as important as sending a dollar to a starving person. Without a culture which sustains values like generosity or comments on where we are or simply expresses what it means to be human, we would never be able to find a single dollar in our pocket for the starving person. Or even if we could we would be unable to give a meaningful answer as to why starving people should be helped (except so they could help other starving people maybe?).
Finally to quote William Tyndale who said:
“There is no work better than another to please God: to pour water, to wash dishes, to be a shoemaker or an apostle, all is one; to wash dishes and to preach is all one, as touching the deed, to please God.”
I agree that washing dishes and preaching are “as important”, though I think that sort of comparison is apples-and-oranges. They’re so different that they’re not even on the same scale.
Sending a dollar to a starving person is no good — dollars aren’t very good to eat. But if your neighbour is starving, woe to the one who doesn’t put down his paintbrush and give him some bread. (I do think D’s onto something about prioritising pretty much everything.)
Re: 19
D, I think you’re putting the cart before the horse; culture is but a by-product of a society, in that there will always be a culture of one sort or another (be it good or bad, etc).
People, on the other hand, are the constituents of society. By giving priority to serving other people, you are indirectly but effectively, influencing the resultant culture of that society.
To paraphrase, it is not that which goes into a man that makes him unclean, but rather what comes out.
I guess you could see all acts as potentially serving people/a person. Painting a picture can satisfy/stimulate one’s emotions, etc.
Yet it is undenyably more important to serve a meal to a starving person than it is to paint them a lovely picture.
…bearing in mind that you could fix the problems of every person in the world today, but their children are still going to be stuffed if the environment they live in is stuffed.
Which is to say that this issue is better considered from a more distant perspective than the feeding of individual starving persons.
p.s. D gets my nomination for 2006 mhjb.co.nz commenter of the year. X
Richard, could you elaborate on what you mean by a more distant perspective?
Do you mean sending a dollar to a starving child in Africa, rather than taking a meal to an ailing elderly neighbour?
Or do you mean taking a more holistic approach; i.e. having a concern for your region or country govern how you interact with your immediate neighbours?
It’s important to understand how what we do fits into the whole, but I think one is as effective as one can be when acting in their current immediate sphere of influence, if that makes sense.
(PS: Matthew – I’ve only just noticed your real-time spell-checker. It’s hot!)
I didn’t know I had one.
I think he will find it’s firefox that does that.
Larger perspective = beyond this generation.
You can keep sending dollars to Africa every year, or you can look at the reasons why they’re starving and/or drowning in the first place, out of concern for the following generations.
Ah yes Sambo, that is in fact what I have – most redfacedly – just found; a most excellent feature of Firefox 2, to which I have just upgraded.
Richard – that’s cool and I totally agree. Feeding an individual starving person does fit into that perspective, however.
My point is Dan, that when you start to think in the long term, fixing the environment is demonstrably “as important” as fixing people. E.g. there’s little point sending aid to Tuvalu today, unless you’re also doing something about the fact that they’re all going to be underwater in 100 years.
I’m not sure we can ‘fix’ the environment, any more than I’m sure that a) there is a problem with the environment, or b) it is a ‘fact’ that Tuvalu is going to be underwater in 100 years.
Since ‘the fall’, creation is in a state of decay (2nd Law of Thermodynamics and all that jazz). We can’t fix creation, but we can make responsible use of it (sustainability, recycling, etc).
There are so many possibilities for the future that we’d be overwhelmed and largely working at cross-purposes with one another in trying to cater for each potential future scenario.
Sending aid to Tuvalu right now might mean that they can in fact cope with the possibility that they’re underwater in 100 years. But it will also mean they’ll be better equipped to cope with any one of the other infinite possibilities they may face instead.
re #27
what about a boat?
Well let’s continue this conversation later on, when you are convinced there is a problem with the environment.
Convincing you of that is a project I do not wish to undertake, though I’m glad we’ve unearthed exactly what the issue is here.
Re ‘To save trees is as important as saving souls’ (15): I find it extremely difficult to see how anyone can come to that conclusion. From what I’ve read of the Bible it seems God places a far greater emphasis on saving souls than saving trees!
Dan, who would you trust to tell you whether or not there is a problem with the environment?
The countries themselves are seriously worried about being submerged
Tim, the Bible doesn’t emphasise saving souls or trees, it emphasises God’s efforts (culminating in Jesus) to reconcile a broken creation to himself. And those of us who believe it get to welcome trees and souls back into the peace Jesus is making. Alrighty!
are trees not curremtly at peace?
Of course they’re not.
When God sent Jesus to reconcile a broken creation He was more worried about reconciling Man to Himself than Nature. Nature is important to God but not as important as Man.
And from what we have recorded in Scripture it seems Jesus spent a lot more of His time on earth healing (physically and spiritually) human beings than trees.
I’m sorry. Jesus spent more time healing people than trees therefore we should? Or is that the priorities of Jesus must be our priorities.
How terribly trite. I must get back to miracle working and dying on a cross… and where’s the nearest temple? On the other hand I’ll never need to use a vacuum cleaner or a mop again… Jesus probably spent less time than I do in front of a computer. Shivers! We’d all best abandon our computers since they weren’t common in the first century!
Really, that’s a pathetic argument.
And let’s also admit that we have three quarters of stuff all information about the life of Jesus. You can’t write a “life of Jesus” because we know a little bit about his birth and youth, a lot about the time leading up to his death, but neither the Bible nor any other source tells us a great deal of what he did in, say, his late teens and early to mid 20s. So please, please let’s not try to say “Jesus spent time (or not) on X therefore so should I”.
The way in which the followers of Jesus were called to imitate him is (I’d like to think, evidence to the contrary abounds) far more creative, contemplative and imaginative than that.
I think 35 & 36 illustrate a (remarkably) shallow understanding of the Bible, our place in time and the need for us to act responsibly.
D,
As you might expect, I’m with Tim (35 & 36) on this one.
I’d love to see your biblical “evidence to the contrary” of the way in which we are supposed to follow Christ.
You’re right it really is quite a feat of imagination and creativity to suppose how a) Christ’s great commission, b) the greatest commandment (One should love Yahweh with one’s entire heart, soul, mind, and strength. One should love one’s neighbour as one would love oneself), and c) the ten commandments can apply specifically to trees and the rest of non-human creation.
These do, of course, apply to non-human creation indirectly, through having primary concern for God and other people.
Matthew, I’m not necessarily saying there isn’t a problem with the environment, it’s just that I’m not sure.
Those countries are worried on the say-so of some aid and scientific groups. I bet there are other scientific groups who, if they’d have ‘got to them first’, could have convinced them that the 21mm rise in sea level is just a normal cycle, and that it will subside again at some stage without causing any problem.
I may simply be dumb, but I’ve seen equally convincing evidence both for and against the degree of climate change that would put Micronesian states under water. Therefore I just can’t be sure one way or the other.
Therefore I’d consider it rash and irresponsible (of myself, at least) to commit valuable resources based primarily on the ‘fact’ that the climate is/is not changing – something that I’m not sure of.
I’d rather commit resources to something of which I am sure. People need love, food, encouragement, physical materials etc.
re:38
People also need an environment to live in.
I don’t disagree that the evidence for climate change appears to move back in forth in the depending on who the hot air’s coming from at the time. Being involved in an industry which will be significantly affected by any actions taken for global warming I continuously see material ‘debunking’ global warming. I can’t find anyone to discuss the detail of climate change with so I’m maintaining an agnostic position at present.
However it does seem obvious (well-accepted and demonstrable) that at a local level there has been a significant lack of responsibility in the way we’ve treated the environment.
And guess what? I suspect each and every company involved with, say deforestation, pollution due to mining and overfishing would justify their involvement in all sorts of ways primarily relating to (you guessed it) PEOPLE!
They might say removing trees employs people which allow them to live and rise on the social scale. Alternatively they might say that open-cast mining allows us to maintain our way of life without excessive costs (which reduces hardship on low income earners). On the other hand overfishing means that people can continue to eat what they like without thinking about it (until of course they run out).
Now with your “people trump everything” stance you can’t really oppose anything people do for other people. Because essentially you are saying you only care about anything in relation to people affected. (I am often told I am a pragmatist, but this strikes me as the worst sort of pragmatism).
Perhaps you will be concerned about other things – where the links between the relevant thing and human life are obvious. Perhaps you will oppose pollution because breathing smoke has demonstrable negative health effects?
But many connections to human well-being are more nebulous than that. So I imagine you won’t be too worried about saving red pandas. And you won’t be too concerned about the natural species which have become extinct over the last few decades, or the increased sterility of lakes and rivers due to fertiliser run-off (I suppose you might be concerned about that last one if it happened to be your favourite fishing spot).
I’m not saying you, individually should be concerned about each and every thing. As one person you can only do what you can do, and you can’t do everything. But to say that people are (or should be) more important than other aspects of creation is to do violence to all of creation.
Things are important in themselves. They have intrinsic value quite apart from human use (or exploitation).
Backing this up Biblically is not hard (it’s so trivial I almost refused to do it). Man was given the garden of Eden to take care of it (Gen 1:26,2:15) to be a responsible steward for it. The Psalms indicate over and over again that the entire earth is praise and bring glory to god. The Israelites were to provide rest for the land (Lev 25). They were to consider themselves to be tenants (v.23-24), who needed to care for their master’s property. If they were disobedient there would environmental devastation (Lev 26). Many of the metaphors (and they’re not just metaaphors, their is a correspondence in the metaphors which makes them richer) for judgment in the Old Testament gain their richness precisely because it is assumed that the people should have cared for the environment (see Ezekiel 34 for a good example). I could multiply references to god’s general unhappiness at the way people have treated the land (see Isaiah 24 esp v.4-6, Jeremiah 2:7).
To treat the land (i.e. the environment) poorly in the Old Testament was to spurn and rebel against the creator.
Finally in Revelation, when the seventh trumpet of judgment was blown, destruction was declared for those who “destroy the earth”.
I think even a cursory reading of the Bible makes it plain and obvious that care for creation is part of the warp and woof of Judaeo-Christianity. And largely Christian culture has been responsible in their care of the environment. It is only post-Enlightenment with increasing secularism and split-level Christianity (such as you exhibit) which has caused the environmental destruction we see around us (aided by our technological culture). And in terms of Biblical prophetic witness this is indicative of god’s judgment.
If Christians were to try and be a light to the world it might start by a non-selfish attempt to care for the world god made them stewards of.
That’d best be my last word on this subject :-)
An example of God explaining His reconciliation in terms of God and Man rather than God and Nature is 2 Cor 5:18-19. ‘All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting men’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation.’ The ‘ministry of reconciliation’ is explained by Paul in this passage in terms of God not counting men’s sins against them. He doesn’t mention environmentalism here although I would’ve thought this would be the perfect opportunity if it plays such a big part in God’s plan of reconciliation.
D, my apologies for wasting your valuable time with such a pathetic argument based on such a shallow understanding of the Bible.
D, thanks for your contribution to this blog; I’m going to take a leaf out of the RDB butt-kissing book and say that I find it worthwhile.
Except for comment 37 on this post. Usually you come up with better stuff than ‘How terribly trite’, ‘Really, that’s a pathetic argument’, ‘I think 35 & 36 illustrate a (remarkably) shallow understanding of the Bible’, and gigantic straw men.
I’m also with Tim in 35 and 36. Those comments were in response to Matt’s comment at 32:
Tim was responding to the implication that God cares equally about restoring his relationship with his people on the one hand and restoring his relationship with non-human creation (‘nature’) on the other. Tim did this in two ways – First, by suggesting that the Bible tells the story of God’s relationship and redemptive work for his people rather than for nature at large. He suggests (and I agree) that the Bible shows that God cares more about his people, whom he led through the desert, with whom he entered covenant, and whom he created in his own image, than creation at large. My reading of the Bible is that it narrates God’s creation of, care for and redemption of his people first and foremost. God cares about people.
Which isn’t to say, of course, that the rest of creation isn’t important. Far from it. But I would’ve thought that creation was cursed through humanity’s first sin, and will be (is being) rejuvenated by humanity’s redemption. The focus is on God’s relationship with his people. Nature is (perhaps) a feature of that relationship. (Please understand that I’m not here promoting the ecojustice-soulsaving dichotomy-distinction-dilemma.)
Secondly, Tim suggests that the Bible’s account of Jesus’ words and behaviour in the gospels helps to show that God’s focus was on redeeming humanity rather than nature. This really is his first point through a zoom lens – that the Bible narrates the story of God’s relationship with his people first and foremost. Jesus’ care and concern for his people is something that strikes me as core to the gospel accounts – see for example the prayer in Gethsemane. This really seems almost too obvious to say. I would suggest that the burden is on you to disprove that this is the case.
Anyway, Tim was not, as you suggest, proposing that ‘Jesus spent more time healing people than trees therefore we should’. Your sarcastic comments were a trifle misaimed and misguided, I think. But then again, I might also have a remarkably shallow understanding of the Bible and pretty much everything. If you think that this is the case maybe you can graciously refrain from telling it to everyone here.
Good comment ‘face.
I think D. might see ‘God cares more about X than Y’ as an example of the shallow understanding.
I for one don’t believe there is any value in a concept of God ‘caring more’ about one thing over another. In fact, I’d say that a great deal of problems arise when people start presuming to rank God’s priorities.
Richard,
What if the priorities are fairly clear in scripture? i.e. It’s not a presumption?
Is there then some value in those priorities?
why is Helen worried about having a sustainable nation when it’s not like she has any kids around that will benefit from it. That’s a harsh thing to say, I’ll admit, but it does seem that she says it as a ‘vote buying’ comment.
if she wants a sustainable nation, maybe she can start by hopping out of her big Ford and and walking to work. Will only take her 20 minutes. (this coming from a guy who was so lazy on monday morning when he had to go to work that he took a 737 plane and two taxis to travel to work!)
Like what, Dan? Like the fact that God obviously cares more about people than trees? My idea of God doesn’t fit with that statement whatsoever.
David, she said it at a Labour Party conference, so presumably her audience had already decided who to vote for.
its not your idea that matters Richard surely scripture rules
Dad, you gotta work harder, give the benefit of the doubt, not reply in a hurry. The God of the Bible cares about the lot, I think; it was all made good, now all twisted, and all destined for renewal.
Matthew,
You misrepresent my point; I am not supposing that care for humanity and care for the environment are mutually exclusive.
Of course I believe God cares for the lot. Yes, it was all made good.
But I think it’s hard to deny that, according to scripture, mankind has a special priority in the eyes of God.
Interesting debate so far.
49. “But I think it’s hard to deny that, according to scripture, mankind has a special priority in the eyes of God.”
Why then is the whole of the Bible first and foremost an account of God’s interaction with His People? The story of God trying to reconcile His People with Him again?
Trees and animals get barely a mention. In fact, God commanded a whole lot of animals to be killed and burnt with trees to save man…
Biblical stewardship requires conscious care of the environment we live in. But I think you go too far when you say we are all the same in God’s eyes – seems bordering on a materialistic view of the world.