Who owes who a living?

October 4, 2010

In the last decade or two of my life I’ve found myself characterising people not as good or evil, rich or poor, left-wing or right, clever or stupid, but more as fundamentally mean-spirited or generous.

The way I view it, people are either grateful for what they have or are, or they’re never happy. You see it in people who appreciate the contributions and the good in others, who have a positive disposition, against those who must always see the worst in things or other people. You see it in those who usually try to praise versus those who usually look for imperfections and complain.

Recently an old friend said something which cast this distinction in a slightly different way, making it a little easier for me to express what I mean. We hadn’t seen each other for over a year and he was telling me of the joys and challenges of his present work as a manager of a small group of staff working in a “caring” profession (ie, social work).

He commented that half of his staff thought the world owed them a living while the other half felt they owed the world a living. These two attitudes provided the challenges and the joys he was talking about.

I thought this was a great way of viewing people’s attitudes in general. People who I see as showing predominantly negative and mean-spirited attitudes usually seem to think that they are owed a living. They’re sure there’s something better around the corner, if only all these other annoying and demanding things would stop happening to them. They are infected with the modern bug of “entitlement” and inalienable rights. Me first.

The others, the generous-minded souls, are mainly grateful of the good things that have happened to them – their luck in being born into good circumstances; the things that others have done for them over the years; the little delights that make each day worth living.

Although they don’t actually owe the world a living, these people acknowledge and appreciate the good things that have happened to them over the years and are happy to keep the circle going by paying back to their families, friends and communities.


The stupidity is in the timing, not the change

October 2, 2010

Last week Transport Minister Steven Joyce offered what is surely the leading contender for stupidest political decision of the year, with regard to changing the rule about who gives way on the road – left-turning or tight-turning – at turns into a side road.

The decision itself is okay. I’m not too worried one way or the other on who should give way and whether New Zealand should align its rules with the rest of the world, as long as we all do it together. This change makes sense, and if statistics suggest it will save a few hundred accidents a year then we should do it.

What’s stupid about it is the timing. Why does it take 18 months to implement? Okay, there will need to be pamphlets and advertisements written, printed and ready for publication and distribution. That should take a week or two at the most. I can see absolutely no other reason to let it hang around for 18 months. Please, Mr Joyce, tell me what I’m missing here!!

In fact, making the announcement – and fuelling so much debate and news coverage – this far ahead of the date of change sows one extra seed of doubt into the decision-making of drivers who already have to assess various factors in deciding when they can and can’t turn with other passing traffic around. ‘I’ve read about the old and new rules – which was the old one and which is the new one?’ ‘Has the rule begun yet?’ ‘Does that other driver know which is the current rule or is (s)he also slightly unsure like me?’

Go ahead and make the change. But either make it in 18 months and don’t talk about it till close to the time, or make the change next week so my current attention on who goes when is focussed on now and not on something 18 months away.

And anyhow, if that many accidents (and perhaps some deaths) will be avoided with the change, then surely the quicker it is done the better for us all.

I repeat: Mr Joyce, either tell thinking people why the huge delay, or change your announcement to make the changeover this month, while it’s fresh in our minds.


A brief note re the Christchurch earthquake

September 6, 2010

This note is for the followers of my blog who are not resident in New Zealand. If you’ve looked back at my history you’ll know that I lived for the bulk of my life in Christchurch, which last Saturday suffered a bad earthquake (the size of the Haiti one). It was exactly one year ago that we moved up here.

Although we were awoken by the attenuated shaking in Motueka (some 350km away), we were not affected in any way. But we have life-long dear friends in Christchurch, so we’re having chats with most of them now that power and phones are back on, and the feeling is universal – that they’re only just starting to get to terms with the fact that their routine lives will not be the same as before for many weeks or even months ahead.

It’s not just a sad story in a movie but it’s real and has consequences, specially for people struggling to make a living already, whose businesses may close for weeks or altogether. Our own emotions, we’re finding, are quite strong as we ponder that — plus feeling very relieved that we up here have escaped.


Kiwirail should not be required to pay its way

May 19, 2010

I may be wrong but … there seems to me to be some faulty economics going on behind the decision to put the pressure on Kiwirail to pay its way. Or is it just a case of starting the debate with the wrong set of assumptions and being totally unable to change our mindsets?

The charge that a rail network in New Zealand needs to be subsidised and therefore should be scrapped just doesn’t wash with me.

Most of its services cannot pay their own way because they cannot compete with road services (trucks for freight, cars and buses for passengers).  But do roads pay their way? Of course not!

We all heavily subsidise roads through taxes. If all road users (freight firms and private vehicles) were to pay for ALL the costs for the creation and maintenance of all roads, through some all-enveloping road user charge (such as tolls based on vehicle weight) rather than through taxes, then we would be not only screaming at the cost but also looking for some alternative – including public transport and rail.

The trouble is, we have a fundamental, rarely questioned assumption that roads should be there so we can drive on them whenever and wherever we wish, and that the government must make them available seemingly for nothing. This assumption has an obvious corollary – that alternative transport modes are add-ons to our car-based lifestyles and must therefore pay their way (because we rarely if ever use them directly).

This is feeble but sort-of okay until we start to look out a decade or more into the future, with fuel costs continuing to rise and roads getting increasingly clogged with heavy trucks (requiring higher-capacity roads at huge cost to subsiding taxpayers). It seems obvious to me that the realisation will eventually dawn that winding down rail for short-term, political reasons has been foolhardy.

So then we will find ourselves debating the seemingly prohibitive costs of buying land and re-laying tracks to build or re-open parts of the network that were sold, left to ruin, poorly maintained or built over.

Christchurch city shows one pretty obvious example of how hindsight is easy but paying for winding back abandoned networks is horrendous. Once it had a tramway system, now all gone. The cost of re-establishing one small part of it (for tourists) has been huge, and this would be magnified greatly if old suburban routes were rebuilt. Much running argument in that city centres on the need (and huge cost) of a light rail system to serve the future. If only all those abandoned networks had not been thrown away, it may have been possible!

And now we have the prospect of closing down existing smaller railway services that cannot pay their way. Doubtless Kiwirail will also sell some of the land these lines occupy in order to free up more money, making it even harder and more expensive for the lines to ever be rebuilt when they do become potentially desirable to run.


The big lessons from volcanic ash and oil spills

May 10, 2010

One problem with being a worrier about the way the world is going is that when your predictions become reality it’s hard to know what to say without sounding holier-than-thou.

I don’t like being told “I told you so” by anyone else, so I prefer not to say it to others when what is obvious to me, but is negative lefty thinking to others, turns out to actually happen. And generally you can hardly be pleased to be right, because what you’re right about too often results in a mess that you really, really don’t want.

But every now and then things happen that cause you to sit up, put two and two together and say: We are going in the wrong direction! It’s obvious. Why could you not see that this was going to be the result? I did tell you so.

Two recent events have made it abundantly clear that unsustainable activities eventually have downstream costs which even the cheerleaders of relentless economic growth acknowledge are horrendous.

Now I didn’t predict the eruption of that volcano in Iceland, and the ensuing disruption to air traffic. And I didn’t predict the accident at the oil rig off the US coast. So I won’t say ‘I told you so’ about these specific events (though some people actually could).

But what I have thought, spoken and written about for many years, and am being proven correct often enough, has been that the more we allow ourselves as residents of this planet to become dependent upon economic growth and the unsustainable tools of growth, the more likely a disaster results when mother nature or human error throws us a curve ball and these tools let us down.

The volcano event has shown how dependent most of us are, mainly indirectly, on scheduled air services. When they’re interrupted for days or weeks, products cannot get to market, people get stranded, people run out of funds to live, business contracts are threatened or breached. And the thing is …. we can’t do anything about it. Good old Mother Nature reminds us that she’s in charge. No amount of management skill, market-driven competition, economic growth or new technology has any real effect.

I’m not saying that good public management skills, sound trading markets or new technologies are poor goals. I’m just saying that we all need a level of self-sufficiency in our places of living, our communities, and our lives such that our existence is not threatened by distant acts of nature. Disrupted, maybe; but not seriously threatened. Making us ever more dependent on remote technologies and activities is just not the way to go.

(I wrote about this in this article on the Haiti earthquake.)

And then we come to the oil rig situation – an even more salutary event with far longer-term implications and an even more obvious lesson for us. Here I’m going to borrow ideas and a few sentences from an opinion article I read in the Christchurch Press (May 3), written by The Times’s Simon Barnes. It was his piece that prompted me to think: I should be writing in the same vein, because I sure think the same.

As we watch on TV the desperation of the Americans who live and earn their livelihood by the coastline that will now inevitably be ruined for decades by the incoming oil slick, it is impossible to see any good side to this. There is no grey area, no “Yes, but ….”, and certainly no bright side. We’ve got it wrong, and we’re going to pay for it.

Those Americans whose jobs will be ruined by the destruction of the seafood stocks will be directly affected. The rest of us will be affected by the resulting costs and how they ripple through our economies.

And although the operator/owner of the exploded oil rig, BP, and its technology suppliers are directly to blame, we’re all indirectly responsible. Everyone who whinges every time the price of petrol goes up, and who demands the right to use a petrol-powered vehicle to go wherever they please, has played a part in this and every costly mistake made within the petroleum industry (including the tanker whose short-cut caused damage to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef last month). The oil suppliers are merely responding to demands from addicted consumers for petrol at the cheapest possible cost – which inevitably means ‘cut corners if you have to, I want my petrol now!

As Simon Barnes put it: “These spills concentrate the mind, at least for a while. They tell us that our addiction for oil is madness, that our short-term thinking is madness, that our reckless approach to containment – oil at any price – is madness. Treasure this spill; it is a rare occasion on which we can see this essential truth of the way we run our lives with absolute clarity.

“We crave oil like a junkie craves his fix, and like the junkie, we will put up with anything to get it. But even for an addict, there come moments of searing clarity. A sudden revelation that this is actually a stupid way to live life. Well, the spill tells us that this is a stupid way to run our planet.”

Sorry for copying that bit, Simon. But it’s exactly what I’ve thought about the attitude of too many people who lack any longer-term respect for our environment, and he’s said it in far better words than I could have used.

And so I say, with feeling, “I also told you so!”


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 25 other followers