[crtified]

There was no workable housing solution, under the circumstances. That's something the populace probably cannot accept. Disparate governments the world over face the same - for example, Australia just voted out their version of National, in favour of their version of Labour, based upon all the same resentments! a political mirror image, proving beyond doubt the fallacy of NZ's partisan blame - and they are finding they cannot policy-it-away. So yes, I am annoyed that we resentfully voted to make it actively worse. If that makes me partisan, then so-be-it. But I acknowledge that I am somewhat preaching to the choir with you, Sir Anders.

As you described, "anti-woke" (among other things) won the day, and unfortunately, regressive large-scale environmental policy is one result of that, because the whole green movement is cast as an aspect of wokeness. There is no "shift to anti-wokeness" that doesn't also involve a net loss for the environment. And that is far more pertinent than PFAS in makeup, where New Zealand's environmental work is concerned. But I accept that I am unpopular for believing and speaking so.

[someotherperson]

> because the whole green movement is cast as an aspect of wokeness

The "Green movement" is the quintessential example of what people consider wokeness because the "Green movement" is arguably the single handed worst thing to happen to the environment. Rejection of nuclear energy in favor of gas and goal (i.e the only other alternatives until a decade ago, and still the only other alternative until we develop better battery tech) is bananas, but that's somehow considered environmental in the eyes of the "Green movement." Moving to plastics to "save the trees" was an extension of that nonsense.

> There is no "shift to anti-wokeness" that doesn't also involve a net loss for the environment

You'll find that the most anti-woke people are the only pro-nuclear voices in Australasia.

[crtified]

Oh, when I said 'green movement', I simply meant it as a synonym for environmentalism in general.

While I sympathise with your support for nuclear power generation, two points:

1) You say : gas and goal (i.e the only other alternatives until a decade ago, and still the only other alternative until we develop better battery tech)

Your claim that gas and coal are New Zealand's only non-nuclear alternative for power generation does not seem supported by the documented state of New Zealand's current power generation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_New_Zealan...

"Approximately 44% of primary energy (Heat and power) is from renewable energy sources in New Zealand. Approximately 87% of electricity comes from renewable energy, primarily hydropower and geothermal power."

2) I acknowledge the documented technical and environmental benefits of nuclear power generation, and suspect that plenty of pro-nuclear scientists would not consider themselves "anti-woke" at all. However, and especially in the wake of 2011's Fukushima incident, the fact that New Zealand has an approximate 75% chance of a widespread M8+ Alpine Fault earthquake in the next 50 years, to be of a scale greater than any which has occurred since European settlement of NZ, will certainly be a considerable environmental factor.

[someotherperson]

1. I appreciate that nuclear might not be the best option for New Zealand, but the New Zealand Greens are members of the Global Greens whose political position[0] is that no country should utilize nuclear energy nor should there be large scale dams for hydroelectric use. Although New Zealand might have the opportunity for small-scale hydro, they actively push for other countries without these options not to use nuclear energy or large-scale hydroelectric.

2. I understand that plenty of "woke" people might feel the same way, but it's really only groups like the libertarians[1], White Nationalist parties[2] and similar ilk who are pro-nuclear in Australasia. This is what I was alluding to. Groups like the Australian Greens party also protested against hydroelectric[3] because although it's renewable, it's not green, due to the impacts that dams have on the environment.

With the above, we see that the Green parties operate in almost lockstep formation and have for decades lobbied for what is ultimately the continued use of gas and coal in place of energy sources that have less of an impact on the climate.

[0] https://globalgreens.org/gg_resolution/climate-change-and-en...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_Party_(Australia)#...

[2] https://www.onenation.org.au/energy

[3] https://greens.org.au/about/our-story

[andersrs]

Unfortunately politics comes in sausage format only and each sausage contains something nasty. I'd like to have strong environmental policy while also not having wokeness shoved down my throat and my kids' throats. I'd like to support neither redneck ute drivers nor woke 'progressives'. As someone who dislikes the sausage format the right-wing user-pays argument is appealing to me. It takes all the spicy bits out of the sausage and let's people add their own sauces as they see fit. That all works great until you find out that right-wing's daddy owns a bunch of sauce companies that spill sauce everywhere. You're stuck with the same few awful sausages because the supermarket won't sell any new sausages unless they get 5% market share. Good chat.