text:
Hansard and Journals
Sustainable Biofuel Bill — First Reading
Sustainable Biofuel Bill
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) : I move, That the Sustainable Biofuel Bill be now read a first time. At the appropriate time I intend to move that this bill be referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.
Biofuel made from a range of plant and animal materials has been hailed as our solution to peak oil and climate change, and condemned as the cause of mass starvation and the final destruction of natural ecosystems. Both are true, and neither is true. Both arguments are extremist and ignore the huge differences between fuels made from specially grown crops and fuels made from wastes or grown on land unsuitable for food production. The idea that it is OK to feed good human food, like grains, into motorcars while people are starving shows what happens when someone pursues a single-minded goal, excludes all other considerations, and totally loses sight of the big picture.
It also shows the abject failure of the market to allocate scarce goods when there are very big differences in ability to pay. There is only so much agricultural land available, so there is an absolute limit on how much grain can be produced in the world. We can increase yields with clever management, but we can never overcome the fact that there are limits. There will never be enough to feed all human mouths and all the world’s vehicles. When it comes to market competition between the fuel tanks of the wealthy nations and mouths of the hungry who cannot afford to pay much for food, it is obvious who will win. In this context, unrestricted biofuels can mean genocide.
The competition between vehicles and living space for orang-utans and other endangered wildlife is even more unequal. If we try to expand the area of available land to provide both food and fuels, what will give? It will be the few remaining wild areas, the areas of biodiversity and naturalness, with no votes and few to speak for them. Already we have lost so much old growth forest in South-east Asia and the Pacific because profits can be made from timber sales, from using the land to grow palm oil trees for biofuels, and from the palm kernel, which is used in our dairy industry as a supplementary feed on high-intensity farms. My colleague Catherine Delahunty has a bill waiting for its first reading that deals with the timber issue by prohibiting unsustainably logged timber from entering New Zealand and undercutting New Zealand foresters who log sustainably. This bill ensures that biofuel made from palm oil will not qualify for subsidy in New Zealand.
Yet we should not let those very serious risks blind us to the opportunities to make fuel from a range of agricultural and forestry wastes and low-value by-products. Sustainable options in New Zealand include tallow from meatworks, and ethanol from a range of agricultural and processing wastes including whey from the dairy industry. As technology matures in the future, fuels from our large quantity of wood waste would come from the forestry industry and from algae grown on sewage ponds with the double value of faster, better sewage treatment and fuel production.
The premier science journal Science has just published a year-long study by 11 specialists in technology, energy systems, climate, ecology, and policy development who resolved their initially differing positions and all agreed that “Biofuels can be produced in large quantities [in the US] and have multiple benefits, but only if they come from feedstocks produced with low life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions, as well as minimal competition with food production.” They list such feedstocks as including but not being limited to perennial plants grown on degraded land abandoned for agriculture, crop residues, sustainably harvested wood and forestry residues, double crops and mixed cropping systems of energy and food together, and municipal and industrial wastes.
That is why I indicated to the Labour Government last year that the Greens would not support its biofuel obligation legislation unless it contained clauses setting out criteria for sustainability. We worked together on the wording of those clauses and refined the bill at the select committee, and that wording was passed into law last year. The new Government does not support a mandatory obligation and it repealed the law, substituting a subsidy for biofuels. For ethanol, the subsidy is achieved by exempting those who produce ethanol from petrol excise tax, and for bio-diesel, which is most likely to be sold as a blend with petroleum fuels, there is a subsidy for the production of the fuel.
However, in repealing last year’s legislation, a new problem was created as sustainability criteria were repealed with it. Those involved in setting up a New Zealand industry are afraid that when they have committed the capital and have invested in doing the right thing, someone will undercut them by using soy beans, which could be feeding people, or palm oil grown by clearing tropical forests. I received a message from Lindsay Fergusson of Ecodiesel, a firm set up to make tallow and bio-diesel. He said “We feel there should be sustainability rules. It shouldn’t be left open to the industry how they feel about them. What is being proposed is perfectly reasonable, and the industry should have some standards around it.” I welcome his support. New Zealand’s clean, green reputation is too important to be besmirched by accusations that we are destroying forests and starving people, when we do not need to. Our big advantage is we have so much primary production self-generating the residues that can be used sustainably for fuel, although we must always remember that the quantity is not unlimited and we still need to take serious measures to use fuel more efficiently.
This bill amends the Energy (Fuels, Levies, and References) Act 1989 by adding the sustainability clauses with appropriate amendments that were law last year. Firstly, it requires that biofuels must show a substantial—not less than 35 percent—reduction in greenhouse gases compared with petroleum fuels. There is no reason we would go to all this trouble and expense to subsidise a fuel that leaves us hardly better off in terms of our greenhouse gas emissions. Fonterra raised the point with me that the whey used to make ethanol and sold to Gull Petroleum as a petrol extender may struggle at some times of the year to achieve that 35 percent reduction, depending on how much of the life cycle cost of milk production one attributes to the whey. I am very open to discussing at select committee whether fuels made from genuine waste products, which would create a disposal problem if not used for fuel, should have that condition relaxed. It was intended to stop scams like the US corn-to-ethanol industry, some of which creates more greenhouse gas to produce the ethanol than it saves in avoided petroleum.
The second requirement in the bill is that production of biofuel does not compete with food production. It specifies that by using a by-product from food production, such as tallow or whey, it does not contravene this provision and neither does oilseed grown in rotation with food crops. In this situation, the seedcake is used for animal feed so the competition with human food is minimal. Thirdly, the production of biofuel must not reduce biodiversity or adversely affect land of high conservation value.
It is not possible to specify in legislation a bright line to separate sustainable and unsustainable biofuels. The detail must be left to regulations. The regulation-making provision is in clause 4, which inserts new section 34C. Regulations will specify how to assess life cycle carbon emissions, how to determine whether land is suitable for food production, and how to define land of high conservation value. We know that those regulations can be drafted quickly, because they were well under way when the Government repealed the previous legislation. The previous Minister of Energy, David Parker, and I met with officials from the Ministry of Economic Development and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to discuss international precedents for such regulations and how quickly they could be achieved. Those regulations would probably be in place now if the legislation had not been repealed and work stopped, but it was very good to hear from the Minister earlier today that it has started again in preparation for the passing of this bill. I commend this bill to the House and I thank the Government for its support.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) : The Government will support the Sustainable Biofuel Bill today. Work is going on in Government departments at the moment on what might be a voluntary scheme to establish proof that biofuels have been sustainably produced in New Zealand. It would then be a short step to look at how that may be prescribed in a regulation. I accept the call from the industry itself to protect what is effectively a domestic industry—and I do not like using that word too freely—to ensure that its integrity as a producer of sustainable biofuel is upheld.
I think it is worth noting that New Zealand consumes about 183,000 barrels of oil or fossil fuel every day. On a quick calculation, that means we are using about 280 million - odd litres of fossil fuel every day. This Sustainable Biofuel Bill becomes important in a very, very small sector of what might be fuel replacement for the future, because the programme that the Government introduced last year will see a subsidy becoming available for up to 60,000 litres a year by the time it reaches its final year of appropriation, and then the Government will need to make a decision about what happens from there.
My point is that 60,000 litres over a year compared with 280 million - odd litres being used a day means that this is very much a fledgling industry. In many ways it also encapsulates some of the points made by Jeanette Fitzsimons—that is, the amount of space that would be required to produce the sort of feedstock that we might get from vegetative material is, to say the least, enormous.
Why, then, encourage the industry? Second-generation biofuels present quite a different picture, and it will be a while before the world is at the point where those are easily produced. But I am very encouraged and impressed by what is happening with algae in the Nelson area of New Zealand, and a lot of work is being done internationally to look at what might be done with wood waste from forestry activities around the world, as well.
The other point I would make is that the fuel we currently use was at one point considered to be a bit of a waste product. For hundreds and hundreds of years no one really knew what to do with oil. It was something that one might burn to get a bit of heat out of it, but just 200 years ago the massive amount of use that we have for it at the moment was quite unheard of, and perhaps even unthought of. So we think that encouraging a biofuels industry in New Zealand at this point, as part of what will happen internationally, is worthwhile.
The standards that the bill puts up are pretty much the same requirements that were in the mandatory obligation bill that the Government repealed late last year. Our reason for repealing it at the time was that there were no sustainable standards in place. The idea was that they would be promulgated at around this time—in 2009, in the middle of the year—and at that point we could have consumed literally thousands of litres of biofuel that may well have come from unsustainable sources. Our other concern was that the cost of that to the economy would have been somewhere between 2c and 6c a litre, and it was not a cost that we were prepared to put upon motorists when there could be no certainty that the cost would do anything at all to improve the greenhouse gas emission levels from this country, let alone from any other country, particularly the countries where the biofuel might have come from. The three points that this bill wishes to insert into the consideration of our standards for biofuels will see New Zealand producers able to put a stamp on their product that guarantees the product is sustainably produced. In the long run that will, I think, be very good for the industry.
There are a few problems in the bill that I think I should give a bit of a heads-up on, not the least of which are some of the time lines that are in place. We would expect the select committee process to go on for some months and the bill then needs to come back to the House. Even though I expect the passage of this bill, when it does come back to the House, to be fairly quick, to have those sustainable standards effective from 1 January next year is a pretty big call. I hope that in conjunction with the consideration of this bill by the select committee there may be a work programme that can start with the officials in the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry of Economic Development, and the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to ensure that we are very, very close to meeting those dates. I know from discussions with the Green Party, with Jeanette Fitzsimons, that a collaborative approach will be possible on this issue.
I have one other question, though, that just struck me while I was listening to the member Jeanette Fitzsimons’ speech. It was to do with the comment that palm oil, for example, could be used for biofuel feedstock and that the kernel then could be used in New Zealand for food for dairy herds, perhaps. I am a little bit struck by the fact that at the moment the emissions from our farming activities present a problem for New Zealand. Our farmers are very good and very efficient. Their husbandry and use of pasture means that emissions from our farm animals are far less intensive and damaging than emissions from many other types of farming operation. But I ask what happens if the cow consumes that palm kernel and then emits the gases that all animals emit. Are they still considered to be totally noxious, totally negative, and totally inappropriate, or is the sustainable nature of the palm kernel industry such that it may get a different consideration? If that is the case, then I ask why our grasslands in New Zealand would not be considered in the same way. I see that Ms Fitzsimons is smiling because she knows that I am trying not to say the words that might be more expressive. It is either that, or I am so completely off-track here—
Grant Robertson: That’s quite likely.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The member says that is highly likely, but it does raise a very interesting question. The idea is that palm oil, effectively, can be made into biofuel and is carbon neutral. I presume that is the position Jeanette Fitzsimons would take.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Destroys the orang-utans and the forests. That’s what we’ve got against it.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Oh, the member is not in favour of those things.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: That’s why we’re not in favour.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, OK, I apologise. I misunderstood. It had me terribly worried that there was something new going on that I had missed. Palm oil, as we all know, is one of the great evils. It is a problem that a certain chocolate maker in New Zealand currently has because of the imported nature of its product these days.
I do not want to take much more of the House’s time, other than to say that if New Zealand is to have sustainable standards, then I hope that those standards are easily achievable by the industry. I will give a commitment at this stage to ask those who are responsible for developing these standards to work with the biofuel industry in New Zealand to ensure that we get workable arrangements and do not end up with the sort of wild bureaucracy that causes people to cut corners and causes questions to be asked about the veracity of the scheme in the first place. This move will be positive for the industry here. The Government has supported the industry with funding of $36 million over the next 3 years. That means that bio-diesel, effectively, will be treated the same as bio-ethanol, with the 42.5c subsidy on that production. As I said earlier in the House today, I am delighted that five of the companies in New Zealand producing biofuels have signed up with the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority to receive some of that subsidy, meaning that we can expect some 50,000 to 60,000 litres of biofuel to be produced in New Zealand this year. I think that is extremely encouraging. I look forward to the easy passage of this bill through the House today, and then to a collaborative select committee process to ensure that, as we are determined to have these regulations, they are as workable as possible.
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) : I ask the Minister Gerry Brownlee, who has just resumed his seat, why, if he loves these standards so much, he voted to repeal them before Christmas. We had these standards in legislation, we worked long and hard at the Local Government and Environment Committee to develop them, we worked very hard to ensure that a process was set out whereby an Order in Council process would detail these standards, and we passed them into law. If this Government had not repealed the previous Government’s biofuel obligation—there was a date in that legislation of 1 July 2009, and our officials had told us that they could make that date—we would already be there.
Our officials told us that they would have to work hard but they said they believed it could be done, or if they needed more time it would be only a little bit more, and it was entirely appropriate that the Minister should have to come to the House to explain why it was taking longer than expected and what the new time frame would be. So we would already be there. It is a bit rich for National members to stand up now and go on about what a great bill this is—and I think it is a good bill—when this is the legislation they repealed before Christmas, saying it was the worst piece of law that they had ever seen.
Hon Georgina te Heuheu: We are entitled to take stock and decide where we want to go.
MOANA MACKEY: Georgina te Heuheu says that they have now taken stock and realised they were wrong. I thank the honourable Minister for admitting that the National Government was wrong in repealing this legislation in the first place. That is the first honest admission we have seen.
I want to thank the member Jeanette Fitzsimons for bringing this bill to the House. It is like seeing an old friend again because it was not that long ago that we were working at select committee to draw up these standards, and I want to acknowledge the role that the Green member on the committee, Metiria Turei, played in that process. An awful lot of work, not only at select committee but outside select committee hours, went into getting this legislation to a point where everyone was comfortable and felt that we were allowing only the sustainable forms of biofuel that were already being produced in New Zealand to go ahead. But at the same time, we were doing as much as possible to shut off the avenues to non-sustainable sources.
The member Nick Smith, who was on that committee, criticised us. He said there were no sustainability standards in it because they had not come into force, but the submitters who came to the select committee told us that as long as the committee gave them a clear steer so that they knew what they were going to be dealing with then that was fine—as long as they were given as much forewarning about what those standards were going to include. Let us be honest, what is in the legislation is extremely detailed. In fact a group of parliamentarians from the European Parliament came to look at what we had done because they were so impressed and thought we had found a really good way through. We gave a clear steer to industry about what would be expected of it once the Order in Council and the regulations were drafted, and that is what it asked for.
I have to say that it is good if we can get biofuel producers on board and the companies that produce bio-diesel. But those companies also supported the biofuel obligation that the previous Government put in, which did not cost taxpayers $36 million. That is what I find astounding, because every day in the House we hear from National members that they have no money to fund things like helping mums on the domestic purposes benefit get off the benefit and into work. They say they have no money for adult and community courses, and no money for new early childhood centres, but somehow there was $36 million for subsidies for biofuels to produce an outcome that the biofuel obligation did for free.
We had legislation in place, and let me point out that one oil company in New Zealand was already providing biofuel and had been doing so for a long time. Another oil company, when the legislation was introduced into the House, started putting biofuel into its mixes because of the legislation. It saw the writing on the wall, so it automatically did that voluntarily before the legislation came into place. So we had people moving down the path before the legislation was even passed. We looked at the target in the bill, and we dropped it down to the level at which we knew it could be supplied by New Zealand providers, from sustainable sources. We were very reasonable, but it was about producing a market for those companies and they were very grateful for that—and it did not cost the taxpayers $36 million.
I am astounded that National seems to think that subsidies for these companies, when we are in a recession and we are fighting over every scrap of money, is the most important way to go rather than keeping in place the biofuel obligation that was there, that provided a market, that the oil companies were already moving towards doing, and, most important, that cost the taxpayers of New Zealand nothing—zero. I look forward to the next National speaker explaining how National can justify $36 million in subsidies for something that was already happening for free under the previous Government.
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) : I think I said last time I was speaking in the Chamber what a pleasure it is to follow Moana Mackey. It gives the opportunity to respond to the requests she makes for explanations for better understanding and that sort of thing. But I will speak about the bill that is before the House, the Sustainable Biofuel Bill. Moana Mackey spoke about a bill that was before the House when Labour was in Government and was then repealed. I did not hear her speak about the Sustainable Biofuel Bill, which is such a good bill.
I will speak about the Sustainable Biofuel Bill, which was submitted in the name of Jeanette Fitzsimmons. It was most interesting to hear its introduction.
Hon Member: Fitzsimons.
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Fitzsimons—exactly. I beg the member’s pardon. I thought there was a double “m” in her name; my apologies to the member. It is without doubt that biofuels will play a big role in our energy mix in the future. The Government is supporting the bill going to the select committee. I believe that it is important that this issue gets debated robustly and calmly, and that the select committee gets to hear expert opinions and can come up with some clear recommendations on that basis.
I listened to Moana Mackey’s speech and—oh, gosh—it was interesting, but, as I said, it reflected backwards and not forwards. It is time to get over it, I say to Moana. But I enjoyed hearing the introduction from Jeanette Fitzsimons and noted with interest—
Moana Mackey: What a waste of Parliament’s time and money passing the same law we repealed last year.
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: I ask the member to just let me get to the point she asked about, and all will be revealed—her answers will be given. There really is an important difference between the two bills. The member knows there is an important difference and will probably like it not to be voiced, but I will voice it.
First of all, I will take up the point Jeanette made in relation to needing a balance between food production and fuel production, because it really can create, and already has created, distortions in the world. I still have a point of concern when I hear people saying we have so much available tallow at cheap prices. We do not, in my understanding of it—and I was involved in exporting for a long time—have a surplus of tallow anywhere. So if we start to use these products for different purposes from what they are currently being used for—it is a by-product, a waste product, and all the rest of it, but it currently makes a hang of a lot of soap in Third World countries and throughout the Pacific—we will be pushing up the price of those products. We simply cannot think that we will not have an effect by making changes.
I will outline a couple of points showing the good work this National-led Government has already done in the area of biofuels. Members of this House might remember—and certainly Moana Mackey remembers very clearly—that after the election this Government repealed the biofuel legislation that required fuel companies to progressively introduce biofuel blends into their fuel mix. We heard the warnings being given by Jeanette Fitzsimons on what happens when we introduce compulsion. One of the major reasons we repealed that legislation was that it mandated the introduction of biofuels. National believes that biofuels should be introduced through companies responding to commercial, environmental, and marketing considerations, not because the Government compels it to. One of the lessons Labour surely must learn is that if one tries to compel things all the time, one will lose the opportunity. Wow! And what is happening? People are taking up biofuels from a commercial point of view.
We have some concerns about the Sustainable Biofuel Bill. The bill requires an Order in Council to be made by 1 February 2010. That will be ahead of international consensus around biofuels sustainability, so New Zealand will be moving ahead of international developments. One problem with that is that there is no internationally agreed standard for what constitutes sustainability. We do not want to get back into the position of aspirational targets, such as the memorable target of the previous Government when it blithely said New Zealand would be carbon neutral, without actually working out how it might happen.
In essence, I believe that the bill should be moved to the select committee. The bill deals with important issues, which is why National supports it. Thank you.
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) : It is clear that the world has to do something to end its doomed love affair with oil. It is a pervasive aspect of our society, from our cars to even bottled-water bottles. Petroleum products in vehicle engines contribute massively to carbon emissions and environmental degradation, at a time when we are all clear about the need to deal with that challenge through action both personally and as a country. We just do not know when oil is going to run out, but we do know that as it becomes more scarce, prices will rise, and that will affect all of us everywhere.
We need better alternatives to carbon-based energy, and one fantastic alternative is the use of biofuels, whereby energy is drawn from much more environmentally friendly sources than the petroleum we have allowed ourselves as a society to become hooked on. But we need to make sure that biofuels sources are environmentally sustainable. Biofuels are drawn from crops such as corn, which is used to produce ethanol, and there are problems with that in the US. We have seen massive price distortions as a result. But biofuels can also be drawn from other plant sources or animal sources to produce bio-diesel or biogas. They can even come from waste cooking oil from McDonald’s. But the crops and lands used for biofuels production are also used for food production, and the Sustainable Biofuel Bill addresses that problem.
Before the great global economic meltdown, the world experienced what The Economist magazine called a “silent tsunami”, with rising food prices and shortages. The race to get on to the biofuels bandwagon was a contributor to the “silent tsunami” that The Economist referred to. So we need biofuels that are sustainable and produced sustainably.
The problem we have here, however, is one that Moana Mackey alluded to: all this could have been in place already. It is very annoying and very frustrating for members on this side of the House—and it must also be frustrating for the sponsor of this bill, who negotiated hard to get the provisions in the repealed legislation—that this House is having to legislate twice, once to repeal legislation under urgency before Christmas, and now this bill, for which we have had to wait months, to replace it.
And what are we dealing with in terms of replacement proposals? As Moana Mackey said, it is a massive multimillion-dollar payment to industry, which is a total waste of scarce taxpayers’ money in the current recessionary environment. It was interesting to hear the previous speaker, Chris Auchinvole, talk about the market working. Well, if this is an example of the market working—because it gets a $36 million taxpayer subsidy—I am sure a whole lot of other parts of New Zealand would like to have a bit more market. But I do not think we will be seeing that sort of approach extended to those who really are in need.
In the meantime, while we have been waiting, this legislation could have been in place, as Moana Mackey said, on 1 July. Instead, we will have to wait until 1 May 2010. In the meantime, jobs have been lost—we have seen that as a matter of public record—in entities that were relying on the biofuels obligation to make producing biofuels onshore domestically sustainable.
Nevertheless, we are here, and, certainly, Labour members welcome the bill. We are committed to seeing its passage through all stages in the House, if the numbers required can be achieved. Although I heard Mr Brownlee say that the Government will support it being referred to a select committee, and the ambition then, as I understand it, is to merge the work being done by officials with submissions on this legislation, Labour is happy to commit to seeing this legislation pass through all its stages, if the numbers can be achieved. This is effectively, as Moana Mackey said, a re-enactment of legislation agreed between Labour and the Greens prior to the last election.
We need the bill, as I have said. It will be an important complementary measure to the emissions trading scheme, when that scheme finally is confirmed by this Parliament, in terms of the tool box that we need to reduce emissions. The bill will be an important part of making sure that we have a balance between food production and fuel production, and it will be a very important contributor to that vital principle in which we all believe: encouraging biodiversity. With those concluding comments, I welcome this bill.
RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : I am really pleased to be able to stand in support of the Sustainable Biofuel Bill, which amends the relevant legislation in order to ensure that biofuels supplied or sold in New Zealand from 1 May 2010 are sustainable. The Māori Party supported the Biofuel Bill that introduced the biofuel sales obligation, and we subsequently opposed the bill introduced in the early days of this Government to repeal that bill. In light of the repeal bill, we were really pleased when Minister Brownlee announced, as part of Budget 2009, that $36 million was available for a new grants programme for bio-diesel production. We saw this programme as a great opportunity for rural marae communities to showcase their ability to use their traditional social and industry systems to be key players in the emerging biofuels industry.
I take a particular interest in the development of biofuels. One of my iwi, Ngāti Kōata, is in the process of establishing a biofuels plant. Our original intention was that we would sell the biofuels to users of static machinery such as school boilers. We started off looking for tallow but we realised that there are uncertainties around its supply, so we are now investigating other sources. Of course, we are not the only iwi who have invested in biofuel manufacturing infrastructure. Taharoa C Block incorporation came to the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee and shared their experience, including the development of the miscanthus species for biofuel production from marginal land, which they considered to be a very promising biofuel project. This bill, then, has the potential to make an important contribution to climate change initiatives to help provide options for employment and to express energy rangatiratanga.
We are very interested in being involved in the interpretation of what sustainable biofuel is, which the bill recommends should be made by regulation by 1 February 2010. The definition of exactly what we mean by sustainability is the crux of the issue. We all know that importing biofuels is problematic, given that fuel is required to transport the biofuel, in addition to the fuel required to create the biofuel. As the price of oil rises, so too does the relative price of energy alternatives. We are concerned that the word “sustainability” can be tossed around, perhaps carelessly, as though merely using the word is sufficient to create a sustainable society.
We have been interested in the view of Dr Albert Bartlett, head of physics at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Dr Bartlett’s analysis leads us to look again at the concept of sustainable growth, in the sense of endlessly increasing. Of course, because the resources are not unlimited, there is not an open-ended supply. The finite size of resources, ecosystems, the environment, and the Earth leads to the most fundamental truth of sustainability: that, in fact, the term “sustainable growth” is an oxymoron. So although we support this bill and the principles of sustainable biofuels, we must do much more than adjusting a regulation on paper; we must look anew at the way we approach environmental management, the efficient use of water, and the conservation of energy. The Māori Party has constantly promoted the importance of reducing our dependence on oil by strategies to reuse, recycle, repair, respect, replace, and trade locally. We must do all that we can to support the development of renewable and sustainable energy resources in order to protect and preserve limited resources such as oil, gas, and coal.
This bill is an important step along the journey, but we stress that it is only a small step. Biofuel energy production is not energy production. With or without biofuels, the critical fact is that we need to radically change how we live. A safe, environmentally sound, and economically viable energy pathway that will sustain human progress into the distant future must be the horizon we all seek to achieve, and we must start to do something about it now. In that spirit, we give our support to this bill and thank Jeanette Fitzsimons for her proactive initiative in putting it forward. Kia ora.
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) : I made my own biofuels sustainability decision in the last couple of weeks, which was to cease my consumption of Cadbury’s chocolate. Those who know me will know that that was quite a major step to take. Gerry Brownlee referred to Cadbury’s use of palm oil in its chocolate, and members on all sides in this debate have referred to the attendant risks around the displacement of forests, around biodiversity, and around food.
In a sense, this debate comes down to a core issue that is frequently the cause of disagreements in this House, and that is the question of how best to achieve a change to the goods and services we all use. There are three basic approaches: one is regulation, one is consumer choice, and one is a weighted consumer choice where we stack the odds through subsidies or other means, such as social marketing, to make one choice more attractive than another. The Green Party makes its selection in terms of the most appropriate of those approaches on an issue-by-issue basis.
Very frequently, the criterion for deciding on that is the relative balance of the public good and the personal good in the outcome of the change. The issue of country-of-origin labelling on foods, for example, is one where we have campaigned for consumer choice. We have said that there needs to be mandatory labelling on foods so that consumers are able to make that choice and so that we can achieve the outcome we are all seeking. Of course, there is a public interest aspect in that, but overwhelmingly that is less important than the personal interests of the consumer. So consumer choice is an appropriate approach in that case. On the other hand, an issue like the food that is for sale in schools is an issue where public interest clearly outweighs the personal interest, and it is important to take a regulatory approach, establishing rules and standards.
On the issue that is before us, we are facing a crisis in the world. The issue about the energy we use for transportation is but a small part of how we address that crisis. Members have already alluded to two aspects: climate change, where it is imperative that we do all that is in our power to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions; and the end of cheap oil, where it is incumbent upon us to find ways to make the best possible use of a scarce resource.
In this area of energy for transportation, people have talked for years about hydrogen cars as being our salvation. That talk seems to have dissipated somewhat, and now we are talking about electric cars. Certainly, there is a lot of value in electric cars, but they will take a long time to implement.
I want to talk about the choices before us now and how we can encourage change in goods and services in this particular area. The public interest in sustainability, in ensuring that we retain biodiversity, and in reducing our greenhouse gases to the maximum extent demand a regulatory approach. I commend members from the Government side for their change of heart on this front. It is great to see that there seems to be consensus in this House that this bill is a timely one, and I look forward to its passage.
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) : I am pleased to support the Sustainable Biofuel Bill. I acknowledge what Kevin Hague said about consensus on this issue. One thing I am proud of is that this Government has been able to build relationships across the political spectrum, not only with the Greens but also with the Māori Party, ACT, and United Future. I want to take a moment to recognise the memorandum of understanding we have with the Green Party that covers home insulation, energy efficiency, and the regulation of natural health products. I also acknowledge the work Kevin Hague has done in terms of the cycleways to ensure that many New Zealanders will have the opportunity to ride them in the future.
The important question in this bill is, what is a sustainable biofuel? That is a debate I am glad we will be able to have in the select committee process, and that is why I am supporting this bill. It is important to talk a bit about the history. In 2008 the previous Government passed the Biofuel Bill. The bill required fuel companies to progressively introduce biofuel blends into the fuel mix in increasing incremental amounts to 2.5 percent of total energy by 2012. Many people called it a biofuels sales obligation. An important point about this legislation is that decisions about which type of biofuel was to be supplied, how much it was blended with fossil fuels, and where it came from would have been up to the industry.
Members opposite have asked for the reasons why we opposed that bill. We opposed it for three particular reasons. We opposed it firstly because we believed that it was mandating the introduction of biofuels, and that was a philosophical point. We did not believe that biofuels should be introduced because the Government was forcing people to do it, but because Governments were responding to commercial, environmental, and market considerations rather than that sense of compulsion. The other reason why we opposed it was we believed that the bill the previous Government put forward would have loaded uncertain costs on to consumers. The evidence from the oil companies that came to the Local Government and Environment Committee was that meeting the obligation, when fully implemented, would add anywhere from 2c to 8c a litre to the cost of fuel. That is why we opposed it.
One thing we are very proud of, and the Minister has talked a lot about it today, is the bio-diesel grants scheme. The key point that we signalled was that we were concerned about the unequal tax treatment between bio-ethanol and bio-diesel. National promised this at the election, and, along with the many good policies this Government has implemented, we have delivered on it. There is $36 million over 3 years to provide a 42.5c per litre grant to produce bio-diesel fuel. I am really pleased that five companies are set to take part. The companies are using a range of sustainable feedstocks to produce bio-diesel, such as tallow, used cooking oil, and rapeseed grown as a break crop. The important thing to note is that the scheme will help to increase the fuel choices available for New Zealand consumers and businesses.
The whole issue, and I acknowledge what members on the other side are saying, is that what we have in this legislation is a first start. I look forward to the select committee looking further at the principles that the Greens have put into this bill. I think it is a really important debate to have about what exactly is a sustainable biofuel, and I acknowledge Rahui Katene’s comments in that regard. We have to do better as a country, in terms of the environment. One good point that Kevin Hague made is that biofuels are part of the argument, but we also have to think more about things like electric cars. Yes, they will serve only a certain number of people, but I think public transport is an important part of this debate about reducing car usage. Biofuels are part of this debate, but so is our use of cars in New Zealand. We have to think more about that, and I am very proud that at the election I supported integrated ticketing. The other day the Government announced that the New Zealand Transport Agency is moving forward. We have seen some significant progress in the area of integrated ticketing, and I really hope that that can be delivered under this Government because we want to encourage more people to use public transport.
This bill is another step the Government is taking that will, in my view, lead to a better and cleaner New Zealand. I am very pleased to be supporting the Green Party. This is another example of the Government working with parties across the House.
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) : This debate would be laughable were it not so serious. I cannot believe the contribution we heard from the previous speaker, Nikki Kaye. She stood there and defended the fact—as if it was a good thing—that National is now voting for the same legislation it refused to support 8 months ago, and then 6 months ago repealed. The Sustainable Biofuel Bill is the very same legislation. There is no difference. It is an illustration of how absolutely incompetent Gerry Brownlee is as the Minister of Energy and Resources. All of these issues were pointed out to him and his Government when they repealed these very same provisions 6 months ago. These provisions are not different in some sort of minor but principled way; they are the same provisions.
During the last election Gerry Brownlee ran campaigns based on the nanny State. Somehow it was nanny State to tell oil companies that they had to incorporate sustainable biofuels in their fuel. Somehow it was better to subsidise it to the tune of $36 million, and not necessarily get the same outcome! Today in the House we heard Gerry Brownlee say that BioDiesel Oils (NZ) Ltd is one of the recipients of the new subsidy scheme. I tell members that I ran into Sue Wood on Monday of this very week as I flew into Wellington. Sue Wood, who is a former president of the National Party, was deeply ashamed that the National Party had ruined the business and effectively put at risk the life-savings of some very decent New Zealanders involved in these fledgling biofuels companies. One company was producing the world’s most sustainable biofuels, as measured by the UN according to sustainability of fuel stock, non-competition with food production, and low greenhouse gas emissions on a life-cycle basis. That company was brought to its knees by the Government’s decision to remove the mandatory obligation on oil companies.
I asked whether the subsidy fixed the problem and she said that they did not know. The reality is that it does not make the oil companies purchase biofuel. It is still a hassle for oil companies to blend biofuels in with their traditional fuel stocks, and they do not want to do it. So even with a $36 million subsidy, we may not be bringing forward the most sustainable biofuels that the world has, and that New Zealand has in a higher proportion to population than any other country in the world. Gerry Brownlee comes to the House and says that this is good policy. He says that wasting $36 million of Government money on this programme is good spending. It is ludicrous. We heard the prior speaker say that it would have cost between 2c and 8c per litre under the mandatory obligation. National members know that that is wrong. The advice from the officials and from biofuels producers is that the cost would have been about 1c per litre. They are making an eightfold exaggeration as to cost.
I return to the reasons that we need sustainability provisions. It is clear that not all biofuels are good, and it is clear that not all biofuels are bad. It is clear that biofuels are part of the solution to greenhouse gas emissions from transport, and that we should be bringing forward sustainable biofuels. Because the Government repealed the sustainability provisions in the law, we can currently import unsustainable biofuels. This legislation fixes that, and I thank Jeanette Fitzsimons for bringing it through. She has more patience with Gerry Brownlee than I have; they are the same arguments and it is the same legislation. I am somewhat surprised that we are seeing such a complete turn-round from Gerry Brownlee. It is a bit like saying we cannot have energy-efficient light bulbs because that is the nanny State. It is interesting that in the last month or so Consumer magazine has come out and said that we were exactly right and National was wrong.
New Zealand’s transport emissions are now on the way down. They went down 4 percent last year and they were static in the prior year partly because of public transport. We need biofuels to do even better. Electricity emissions are going down and deforestation emissions are down, yet National is saying that it is the be-all and end-all when it comes to climate change policy. This is another example of National’s incompetence. I am pleased, though, that this legislation is about to pass its first reading today.
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) : I would like to thank all of the members of the House who have spoken in support of the Sustainable Biofuel Bill. It is very satisfying that it appears that the bill may go through unanimously. The ACT Party has not spoken, but every other party has spoken in support of the bill and I thank them for that.
A couple of things came up in debate that I would like to set right. The claim was made by Chris Auchinvole, as has been made many times before, that the tallow in New Zealand is currently exported and made into soap in China, and that if we do not do that then soap will be made from less sustainable things. Well, I have good news for members: it is the glycerol in the tallow that is made into soap. The glycerol is a by-product from turning tallow into bio-diesel, so we can turn the tallow into bio-diesel here, be left with the glycerol, and export that to China to be made into soap. So it is a win-win solution, like most of the things that the Greens propose.
It was a concern that when the previous legislation was repealed, the officials adjusted New Zealand’s expected carbon emissions in 2020 upwards, to adjust for the fact that there would not be biofuels being used in New Zealand to reduce those emissions. I hope that the combination of this bill and the Government’s policy means that those emissions can be adjusted again.
We have heard tonight a debate mainly about the philosophical arguments between National and Labour about whether mandatory standards are better or worse than subsidies. That is a philosophical, political debate, and the parties have an absolute right to debate that. But what has happened, as has happened so often before, is that sustainability has once again slipped through the cracks of that argument between those on the right and on the left. I do not want members to get me wrong. I tell them the Greens do have a view on that issue, and it includes a concern that, as David Parker has said, even with a subsidy local producers may still find they do not have a stable market, because if oil prices continue to fluctuate wildly it will sometimes be economic to buy biofuel and sometimes not economic. That means that local producers may not be able to sell it stably, and therefore they may not invest in the industry. So we do have the problem that the measure might not be effective.
But that is not the issue here today. The issue is about how to make sure that any biofuels that we do use are sustainable, and on that we seem to have agreement right across the House. It is another issue where the Greens sold a policy to the Labour members last year, helped to develop it cooperatively with them, saw the legislation be repealed, then sold it to National after the election. I thank both parties for accepting the importance of the issue. We have actually brokered an agreement across the House without National or Labour ever having to talk to each other about it, and we now have general agreement that biofuels should be sustainable, in much the same way that we have brokered agreement between Labour and National that home insulation is worth investing in. We are pleased to play that role.
I thank everybody for their comments on the bill tonight. I look forward to getting it back as quickly as possible. I do not think the Local Government and Environment Committee will need to take very long to consider the bill, because it has already considered the exact wording that is in the bill, has helped to develop it, and is thoroughly familiar with it—or at least the members who are still on the committee are—and I am sure that it will not take the committee very long to decide it is a good thing to put the legislation back in force. I look forward to the bill coming back to the House and passing into law.
- Bill read a first time.
- Bill referred to the Local Government and Environment Committee.

domain: economics


text:
“Let me stop you there,” Eve said, setting her cup down. “No one is going to take advantage of me, and there is nothing going on between me and Sergeant Martinez. We are just working together, that’s it.”
“I just worry that he isn’t pulling his weight and is creating more work for you.”
Eve finished doctoring her coffee and sat down on the couch. “Honestly, Dad, he has done everything I’ve asked and hasn’t shirked his responsibilities once. You might want to lighten up and give him the benefit of the doubt. Besides, I’ve seen Hank when he’s had a few, and I’ve been tempted to knock his ass out myself.”
“I know exactly how difficult
your brother can be, but it doesn’t change anything. Sergeant Martinez should have known better.”
Eve sighed. She wasn’t going to win an argument with her dad about her brother. He might say that he knew Hank’s faults, but her brother had always been able to get away with murder. Perks of being the baby and a boy, she supposed.
“Fine. Is this why you dropped by? To ask about how Sergeant Martinez was doing? And don’t tell me it was because mom was worried, because I don’t buy it.”
He had just finished taking a drink of his coffee and set his mug down on the coffee table before answering. “I just wanted to check in with you. It’s not as if we see each other anymore without family dinner, and when I learned you weren’t coming, I wanted to find out why. Now I know.”
Man, he was a master of the guilt trip, but underneath that, she heard exactly what he was trying to say: I miss you. Despite their innate ability to drive each other nuts, they were close and she missed him, too.
“I know I’ve been a little absent, but I just want to do a good job. It’s hard networking and getting a new business off the ground,” she said. “I promise, next Sunday I’ll be there and you can pump me for all the information you want about Sergeant Martinez or anything else.”
“I’ll hold you to that,” her dad said. “Just be careful with Martinez. Still waters run deep with that one, and I don’t want you getting hurt.”
Eve opened her mouth to defend Oliver but thought better of it. There was no point in fighting with her dad about a man she wouldn’t ever see again once the event was over. Nothing was going to happen between Oliver and her before or after, so why bother getting her dad bent out of shape?
“I will. I promise.”
Her dad nodded and stood up. “Well, I guess I’ll leave you to clean up.”
Eve rolled her eyes and followed her dad to the door. “You just had to get that last dig in, huh?”
“I’m your father. It’s my job to encourage you.”
OLIVER STOOD IN the middle of his living room, staring at the fluffy material that used to be inside his couch cushions and now blanketed the floor. Beast lifted his head from where he sat gnawing the side of his leather armchair, and when Oliver saw the white cotton caught in the dog’s lips and teeth, he lost it.
“I was in the shower for twenty fucking minutes! How in the fuck did you do all this in twenty minutes?”
Why in the hell had he listened to Sparks and Best? The two of them had told him that socialization and bonding were an important part of training and that he needed to take the monster dog home with him to do that. Now, he wouldn’t be surprised if it was all just a setup. Give him the defective, destructive dog and just sit back and laugh.
Beast panted at him for a second before his wrinkly face scrunched up and he sneezed, sending stuffing and snot flying through the air. Oliver grabbed the leash, planning on taking the dog back to the facility, but instead, he found himself running after Beast as the dog grabbed one of the throw pillows and skidded out of the room.
It wasn’t just the damage to his furniture that had Oliver ready to send Beast packing. When he’d left the dog in the backyard last night, Beast had howled for hours until Oliver had brought him inside and shut him in the crate he’d taken from the facility. But that was worse. Finally, Oliver had given up and let the dog out of the cage, leaving him to wander around Oliver’s bedroom. Oliver had finally fallen into an exhausted sleep and woke up spooning Beast in his bed.
The day had progressed from there to this moment, chasing a dog through his house right before Eve was supposed to arrive.
When she’d texted that she wanted to come by to iron out the event details, he’d picked up the place quickly before grabbing a shower. Now, he just wanted to tell her not to come, that they would have to plan for another day because he had a dog to annihilate.
Beast barked at him as he bounded across the bed, a definite spring in the dog’s every bounce.
“You think this is funny? I’m not playing with you, dude.”
Beast barked again, and when Oliver lunged, Beast took off, letting out a howl as someone knocked on the door.
“This isn’t over,” Oliver snapped. The dog launched himself on top of the ruined couch, barking out the window.
“Get your ass down,” Oliver shouted as he threw the door open.
Evelyn stood on the other side, her hair pulled back in a simple ponytail. Her black-framed glasses were missing today, giving him an unobstructed view of her green eyes as they crinkled in amusement.
“Bad timing?” she asked.

domain: literature


- Melbourne’s National Center of Climate Restoration has published a report that says climate change will bring ‘existential threat’ to the world by 2050.
- Although not a scientific study, the paper is attempting to help people visualize the possible future based on existing research.
- Chris Barrie, former chief of the Australian Defense Force, labeled human-induced global warming as the “greatest threat to human life… after nuclear war.”
The future isn’t looking good, according to a report supported by a former military chief in Australia. As it looks like, we’re going to face the scariest scenarios – such as 21 days of lethal heat each year and over a billion people displaced – unless we take drastic actions against climate change now.
Although not a formal scientific study, Melbourne’s National Center for Climate Restoration tells us their report paints a picture of a possible future based on current researches. And yes, we have reason to be worried.
Human civilization could experience massive devastation by 2050 if the problem of climate change is not addressed immediately.
As former Australian Defense Force head Chris Barrie wrote in his foreword for the paper:
“After nuclear war, human-induced global warming is the greatest threat to human life on the planet.”
“A doomsday future is not inevitable. But without immediate drastic action our prospects are poor.”
Food production will significantly decrease and even major cities will be partially abandoned, the report predicted.
Meanwhile, University of Melbourne climate science lecturer Andrew King believes we don’t know exactly how widespread the possible evastation can be.
“Without a doubt (climate change) is a huge threat to human civilization. It’s the details that we need to pin down.”
Aside from climate change, other factors such as population growth should also be considered, according to King.
Climate experts and report authors David Spratt and Ian Dunlop said that climate change already poses a “near-to-mid-term existential threat to human civilization” at present time so things can only get worse if no actions are taken.
An article published by CNN about the report further tells us:
“Across West Africa, tropical South America, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, there would be more than 100 days a year of deadly heat, leading to over 1 billion people being displaced.
“Food production would drop off due to the “catastrophic decline” in insect populations, weather too hot for humans to survive in significant food-growing areas and chronic water shortages. With not enough food for the world’s population, prices would skyrocket, the paper’s authors argue.
“Rising sea levels would cause people to abandon parts of Mumbai, Jakarta, Guangzhou, Hong Kong, Ho Chi Minh City, Shanghai, Bangkok and Manila, among other cities. Around 15 million people in Bangladesh would be displaced.”
“The social consequences range from increased religious fervor to outright chaos,” the paper also pointed out. “In this scenario, climate change provokes a permanent shift in the relationship of humankind to nature.”
Bees Kill Penguins by Stinging Them in the Eyes
2000 Kilogram Sunfish Caught Off North African Coast
Man Embezzles $57K in COVID-19 Relief to Buy Pokemon Cards
Florida Man Catches and “Recycles” Alligator in Driveway
Man Shocks Reporter on How He’d Spend the Lottery Winnings
Man Joins Search Operation Not Realizing He’s the One Missing
World’s Oldest Rhino Dies in Italian Zoo at 54 Years Old
Meet Quilty – Cat Escape Artist Helping Other Cats Jailbreak
Fans Use American Flag to Save Falling Cat During Football Game in Miami
TikToker Shares How She Tricked Invaders Who Tried Opening The Hotel Door While She Was Alone
Man Iced Neighbor Who Repeatedly Asked Him “When Are You Getting Married?”
Do You Live in One of These 15 Countries With The Most Beautiful Women on Earth?
The Secret Meaning of Anklets And Why Some Wives Wear Them
Waking Up Between 3 to 5 AM Could Mean You’re Experiencing Spiritual Awakening
Divorced Man Wrote 20 Epic Marriage Advice He Wished He Could Have Had
Haunting Photos of Two Tourists Snapped Just Before They Mysteriously Disappeared
“Chastity Cages” is the Latest Thing for Men
Pork Fat Is Officially One of the World’s Most Nutritious Foods
Some Stranger Padlocked This Guy’s Earlobe And Ran Away With The Key
Three-Month-Old Baby Left Blind in One Eye After Family Friend Took His Picture


text:
We invite all new librarians, especially people of colour (POCs), to join us as we explore the current landscape of diversity and inclusion in librarianship. By attending our session, new librarians will be able to advocate for themselves in their occupation especially when faced with barriers or microaggressions. They will understand the importance of their role as a librarian of colour in a predominantly white industry and why inclusion and equity in librarianship is essential to serving their community. New librarians and those entering the field will learn about the history of marginalized librarians in North America.
Also, our participants will have the opportunity to make connections with other librarians of colour and learn about resources and networks for POC librarians. We will start them on the path to mentorship as it is one of the key resources to help POC librarians overcome barriers to inclusion in the field. We want our participants to leave our session feeling empowered and able to navigate the unique challenges POC librarians face in the field; we want our participants to leave knowing that there is a whole community of librarians who are sharing in their experience.

domain: library


text:
Understand Legislation Prior To You Regret.
Regulation is a set of guidelines that control human actions as well as are applied by governmental and social establishments. Although the exact interpretation of regulation has actually been discussed for centuries, its major elements are frequently called a scientific research, an art, or a system of justice. To understand law, it is handy to understand its origins and its development.
Law is a vast topic that includes virtually every aspect of human life. It can be divided right into 3 main areas: criminal regulation, civil treatment, and also evidence law. Criminal regulation concentrates on the regulations of the court system, while civil procedure is interested in guidelines of evidence and the admissibility of products in court.
Regulation is a vital part of society, as it assists individuals access justice. It likewise helps to form society as well as national politics. In its easiest form, regulation is a system of civil liberties as well as commitments based on a constitution or other guidelines. However a society’s regulations may be interpreted in a different way relying on its history and also constitution.
Regulation likewise serves various other objectives, including keeping tranquility in a society, shielding minorities from majorities, and advertising social justice and organized social change. Some lawful systems are much better at offering these purposes than others. Authoritarian routines, as an example, may utilize the law to suppress political challengers and also minorities. Various other governments utilize it to impose order and also tranquility.
The power to make laws is dependent on political power. Even if armed forces power can command political power, transformations are challenging to accomplish. Consequently, a country’s political system varies significantly from nation to nation. However, generally, regulation is an item of political action. It is an expression of a country’s worths. If the law is complicated, it can be a guard against power. This is why it is so crucial to safeguard the guideline of legislation and also protect specific rights.
The principle of law has actually been around for centuries. Today, it is a vital perfect of political custom. We can not judge contemporary understandings of the Guideline of Legislation without an appropriate understanding of its background and heritage. In short, law is a collection of rules and also principles that control habits. Sometimes, these guidelines are implemented with the control of the regulating authority.
While Policy of Law is frequently seen as a formal perfect, several jurists believe that it has a substantive part also. According to Raz, “generalization includes the bacterium of justice.” These concepts are often linked to public awareness, security, and also clarity. Additionally, they are essential elements of a democratic culture. In some cases, the Guideline of Regulation has a direct influence on problems of liberty. There are many methods to interpret these principles, and also it is important to understand just how they relate to each other.
Aristotle recognized law as an unique form of governance. He contrasted it with the Nazi design of fear as well as supervisory management. He said that the regulation of legislation is not the like the regulation of male. The last, he stated, was not more secure than the previous. Furthermore, he said that the Rule of Regulation is a system of regulations.
An usual blunder that politicians make is perplexing the two. In order to recognize the principle of Guideline of Legislation, one need to recognize the principle of legitimacy. Validity is a set of concepts that control habits. It is the product of calculated decision-making by effective officials. It may also have a moral or social facet, however this is not the main emphasis of the concept.
Fuller highlighted the significance of regulation as distinct from various other kinds of governance. He contrasted the rule of legislation with a Nazi-style reign of terror, supervisory administration, and allocative decision-making in blended economies. According to Richer, the policy of regulation is necessary since or else we will have no legislations at all.
The USA legal system has actually progressed over the last two centuries and also has become a design for lots of countries. It has resulted in a considerable as well as varied collection of legislations. The United States Code is split right into different titles, each covering a details topic. As such, it is essential to find out about each of these titles and just how they connect with each other.
Civil law refers to the regulation that relates to individuals and also points, excluding criminal law. In most nations, civil law is ordered. 2 of one of the most prominent civil codes are the German BGB as well as the French Code civil. These ordered systems of law are extensive and organized. Roman law is vibrant and also logical, and civil law is organized around common law topics. In addition, it has basic conditions that can be adjusted to alter.
Legislation relates to nearly every area of life. It can be divided right into a number of various areas, including work, public, as well as exclusive. Labour regulation involves the tripartite partnership in between companies as well as workers. It also manages the right to strike. Specific work legislation concentrates on the civil liberties of employees in the workplace. Various other types of regulation consist of civil as well as criminal treatment, and also evidence law.
Legislation school calls for students to work hard as well as place in a significant amount of time to research. The workload is substantially greater than that of an undergraduate university. Generally, regulation students should set aside at least 40 hrs a week to study as well as read. This is a major difficulty, so it is necessary to have time monitoring skills to handle your routine. Remember, though, that law college is about establishing analytical abilities rather than memorizing memorization.
There are certain features of legislation that distinguish it from casual personalizeds. One of the most essential is generalization. Without particular orders, legislations are worthless. While the need of abstract principle suggests that law needs to be unbiased as well as impersonal, it does not indicate that the rules need to constantly coincide. A fine example of this is the requirement for the rule of regulation. get more info
Consequently, the regulation of law is often criticized for being antiquated. This is due to the fact that Regulation of Legislation supporters typically think of regulations in regards to plainly prepared actions and also openly acknowledged structures. Nevertheless, such a sight does not correspond to the regulation in the contemporary world.

domain: politics


Police pursuits are hardly the desired outcome. They’re dangerous and put the public, and officers, at risk. However, one company is aiming to change that with its latest contraption.
The Grappler Police Bumper wants to become the go-to way to stop suspects in their tracks by roping in the suspect vehicle at the rear tires. The gadget extends and wraps tow rope around the rear tires of the vehicle, ending any chance at wheelspin. With the wheels locked, the police vehicle can then force the vehicle to stop.
However, the solution raises plenty of questions. The debut video shows the Grappler in action, but deploying this at high speeds seems mighty dangerous, especially if the suspect were to begin swerving. That would effectively create a two-car spin rotation. Furthermore, locking the wheels up on a vehicle moving at high speeds never sounds like a great solution.
But, from what we see, it does work. According to Jalopnik, the company will hold live trials so the device can be seen in person. Check it out in the video above.


A sharp drop in subscribers sent Netflix shares into freefall, forcing it to consider experimenting with ads and cracking down on password sharing.
Tagged with: netflixRead More »
April 20, 2022 Comments Off on As shares plunge, Netflix takes aim at password sharing
June 10, 2015 Comments Off on Marriott gets streaming, offers Netflix in hotel rooms
April 24, 2015 Comments Off on Comcast abandons Time Warner Cable bid after gov’t pushback
NEW YORK — What killed Comcast’s $45 billion bid for Time Warner Cable? Regulators’ desire to protect the Internet video industry that is reshaping TV. A combination of the No. 1 and No. 2 U.S. cable companies would have put ...Read More »
February 9, 2015 Comments Off on Netflix selling in Cuba in symbolic move
May 11, 2014 Comments Off on Citing programming costs, Netflix raises prices
March 14, 2014 Comments Off on Senate approves hike in film tax credits
February 24, 2014 Comments Off on What does Netflix-Comcast deal mean for consumers?
February 21, 2014 Comments Off on ‘House of Cards’ wants Md. to boost tax credits
December 4, 2013 Comments Off on Crowdsourcing for businesses large and small
October 21, 2013 Comments Off on Original programming helps Netflix earnings take off as subscribers soar
SAN JOSE, Calif. — Netflix’s earnings quadrupled as the Internet video subscription service’s lineup of original programming helped attract 1.3 million more U.S. subscribers during its latest quarter. The July-September financial results announced Monday are the latest evidence of Netflix’s ...Read More »


text:
Al-Quds, 29 Dzulqa’dah 1437/1 September 2016 (MINA) – Israeli sources revealed that an Israeli company won the second tender of Israeli Tourism Ministry and the so called “Israel Lands Administration” for hotel construction in Mount Scopus in Occupied Jerusalem.
Yedioth Ahronoth Israeli newspaper reported that the hotel consists of seven floors with a capacity of 150 rooms in addition to commercial facilities, The Palestinian Information Center (PIC) reported.
This projects goes in line with Israeli ceaseless plans for Judaizing and changing the historic features of Occupied Jerusalem.
According to the Israeli Ministry of Tourism, hundreds of new hotel rooms are going to be added in the coming years.
The Tourism Ministry financed the marketing costs of the tender and will handle the development, in cooperation with the “Israel Lands Administration”, according to a statement from the ministry.
The statement added that the compound to be built is among the last significant areas of land in Jerusalem dedicated to the immediate construction of hotels. The site is zoned for six hotels (with four lots being marketed first and the other two at a later stage).
The hotel compound also includes land with a listed building, commercial property and an area, common to all the hotels, that will be designated for bus parking.
The commercial area will attract visitors from the adjacent promenade, and will serve as an entertainment attraction for tourists. “This tender is another important step in increasing hotel room supply in Jerusalem. This tender will add to hundreds of hotel rooms that have been approved in the last year in the Jerusalem Ridge compound, which will become a tourism complex located in one of the most attractive places, overlooking the Old City basin,” said Tourism Minister Yariv Levin.
Two companies: Hasid Brothers Contractors and Construction Ltd. and Klir Chemicals won the first tender to build 580 hotel rooms that will be built on the site.(T/P008/R07)
Mi’raj Islamic News Agency (MINA)

domain: news


text:
Apple has always been known for its state-of-the-art technology, and the brand’s devices have become an integral part of our daily lives. However, with digital security becoming increasingly vital, the recent discovery of two zero-day vulnerabilities impacting several Apple devices is cause for concern. In this article, we’ll discuss these vulnerabilities, how they can be exploited, and what you can do to protect your Apple device.
The two zero-day vulnerabilities, CVE-2023-28205 and CVE-2023-28206, were discovered by Clément Lecigne of Google’s Threat Analysis Group and Donncha o Cearbhaill of Amnesty International’s Security Lab. Both vulnerabilities have been actively exploited by hackers, which puts Apple on high alert.
CVE-2023-28205 is a use-after-free vulnerability found in WebKit. This vulnerability can be exploited by attackers who can trick users into visiting malicious websites under their control, resulting in the execution of malware on the infiltrated computer. In other words, visiting a hacked website is all it takes for hackers to take over your device.
CVE-2023-28206 is an out-of-bounds write vulnerability found in IOSurfaceAccelerator. An application can exploit this vulnerability by exceeding the boundaries of IOSurfaceAccelerator, allowing attackers to execute arbitrary code with kernel privileges. This gives hackers the highest level of access to your device, effectively putting it under their control.
Apple has taken swift action to address these vulnerabilities. The latest versions of iOS (16.4.1), iPadOS (16.4.1), macOS Yosemite (13.3.1), and Safari (16.4.1) have been updated with enhanced input validation and memory management to resolve these issues.
It’s worth noting that a similar problem, CVE-2023-23529, was identified in February, and Apple issued critical security upgrades to resolve it. This WebKit type confusion problem was fixed by the tech giant by implementing enhanced checks.
Who Is Impacted?
Several Apple devices have been impacted, including:
- iPhone 8 and subsequent models,
- all models of iPad Pro,
- iPad Air models starting with the 3rd generation and later,
- iPad models starting with the 5th generation and later,
- iPad mini models starting with the 5th generation and later,
- and Macs running macOS Vista
Protecting Your Device
Apple has advised all users to promptly upgrade their devices to the latest operating system to guard against the possibility of exploitation. Keep in mind that maintaining a proactive approach to cybersecurity and updating your device with the most recent software patches and updates is essential.
In conclusion, the discovery of these two zero-day vulnerabilities in Apple devices is concerning, but the company has taken quick action to resolve them. Make sure to upgrade your device as soon as possible, and keep your software up to date to protect your device from potential attacks.


text:
Extracts from the diaries of K.O. Eklund. Hawara 1917
What a picture of desolation! And yet we are standing in the midst of one of the most fertile tracts in the world. These rough sun-dried brick under our feet form the summit of the pyramid of Hawara, which stands in the mouth of the Fayûm, and from this elevated point of view Norris was looking southeastward through the valley which connects the depression of the Fayûm with the Nile valley. Beyond on the horizon is the pyramid of Illahun .
We should note it well, for it marks the southern end of our sixty-mile line of pyramids, to which we have so often referred; and the 12th Dynasty, to which it belongs, was the last to construct great pyramids. That line, then, of which we have here reached the end, was in course of construction during a period of over a thousand years; and Lepsius, during his great expedition, found no less than seventy-six pyramids in the Nile valley.
What a line of noble sepulchers, and what a line of kings who raised them! Out of our range of vision, on the left, behind the hills, is the pyramid of Medum, the first real pyramid; built by Snofru, the last king of the 3rd Dynasty. With this exception, the north half of the pyramid line belongs to the Old Kingdom, and the south half to the Middle Kingdom, and thus as we have before noted, we have passed down the dynasties and down the centuries as we have come south from Gizeh.
The kings who made the 12th Dynasty so famous took great interest in the Fayûm. Here a depression in the desert of some thirty by forty miles, not differing from those which form the oases of the Sahara, had been flooded by the waters of the Nile inundation, which found access to the basin through the valley down which we are looking (Map 6). By enormous hydraulic works, continued from reign to reign, and completed by Amenemhet III, the waters were pushed back, and the completion of a wall or dike twenty-seven miles long, restored to cultivation some 27,000 acres of very productive land.
The body of water behind the dike was known to the Greeks as “Lake Moeris,” and its basin in classic times, as the waters continued to recede, became the very garden of Egypt. We shall have occasion to refer to it again, when we visit the ruins of its principal city. Under the 12th Dynasty kings, it was connected with the Nile by a canal, and served as a basin for the storage of water for use in irrigation.
It was thus the forerunner of similar modern works, like that of the great dam at Philae, which we shall later see. The modern successor of that canal is visible on our right. It is a natural channel, known as the “Bahr Yusuf,” that is, “the river of Joseph,” whose name is thus connected in popular tradition with one of the most important sources of irrigation in modern Egypt, as it was with the exploitation of the country’s fertility in ancient days.
The 12th Dynasty kings who thus improved the region, lived in the vicinity, and a residence city of theirs, now lost, was located somewhere between here and Memphis (which is off here on our left). Just here on our right, between us and the canal, you observe a few low mounds. These are the edge of the spot, which extends beyond our range on the right, where once stood the labyrinth, famous in the literature of the Greeks as the forerunner of the Cretan labyrinth. It is stated by them to have had no less than 3,000 rooms, which is unquestionably an exaggeration; but it must have been an enormous building, for the excavation of Petrie on the spot have shown that it was 800 by 1,000 feet on the ground plan.
From the Roman period on, it was used as a quarry, and the walls were so completely carried away down to the ground, that it was very difficult for Petrie to trace the plan. Modern investigation has therefore been unable to determine its character and use with certainty, but judging from Greek descriptions, it can hardly have been anything else than a temple. Its builder was Amenemhet III.
You have been struck with the fact that this pyramid on which we stand is not of stone. It was, to be sure, once sheathed in a splendid casing of limestone masonry, which has since been removed for building material, thus serving as a quarry like the vast labyrinthine temple at its base. But the 12th Dynasty kings discovered that sun-dried brick formed very effective core masonry for such a structure as a pyramid, when properly cased in stone, and thus they saved themselves enormous labor and expense in the quarries. When completed this pyramid was 333 feet and 10 inches square on the base, and 190 feet high.
Finding that the carefully planned pyramids of their predecessors were being opened and robbed, the kings of this time introduced the most ingenious devices to conceal the entrances to their pyramids, and to baffle the robbers when the entrance was once found. Instead of making the entrance of his pyramid on the north, as was customary in the Old Kingdom, the builder of this one placed the descending passage, which pierced the rock beneath this pyramid, here on the south side, on our right, and far to the west of the middle.
The passage, after making four turns, then approaches the burial chamber from the north, having gone clear around it! At three of the turns, progress was completely barred by a huge trap-door block, weighing, in one case, twenty-two tons; but the dishonest architects of the Pharaoh had closed only the first one, certain that the royal family would never know what they had done with the other two, after the first was closed.
The tomb robbers, therefore, had to cut their way through the great trap-door block, but were not troubled by the other two. But they were completely taken in by one of the architect’s devices. They found the entrance to a certain passage carefully masoned up, and thinking it must contain something of value, or certainly lead to the burial chamber, they removed the masonry, only to find more behind it.
This also they removed, and continually finding more, their appetites were but sharpened as they saw how much labor had been expended in making the passage secure. After they had thus removed a masonry filling from a passage about 84 feet long they found it ended in an aimless cul de sac, in nothing, in solid rock!
The burial chamber itself was in the native rock beneath the pyramid, as it is in all pyramids except the first pyramid of Gizeh. There was no door, but it had been entered on the day of burial through the roof. To make this possible it was necessary to construct two roofs with a space between them. The upper roof was constructed of enormous blocks of limestone weighing fifty-five tons each, and was assisted in its burden bearing by an arch of sun-dried brick above it; the lower roof covered the chamber itself and had a trap-door block of quartzite at one end, weighing forty-five tons. This was lowered into place on the day of burial, after the king had been laid in his sarcophagus. The tomb robbers were unable to raise it, so they cut away one corner and crawled through.
The chamber to which they had thus gained entrance is 8 by 22 feet on the floor, and 6 feet high, and is cut from one single block of “glassy hard” quartzite weighing 110 tons. Yet in spite of all these elaborate and costly devices, which must have exhausted the skill of the best engineers and craftsmen in that ancient realm, the robbers forced their way into that chamber deep under our feet and despoiled the body of the king of his splendid regalia, and pillaged the sepulcher of its magnificent furniture.
Seeing the futility of such means for protecting his sacred body, the Pharaoh no longer expended his wealth in vast sepulchers like these, and thus it is that we stand here upon the summit of the last pyramid. When we have arrived at Thebes, we shall see that after a short interval of modest masonry tombs, built upon the plain, the Pharaohs followed the example of their nobles and hewed vast tombs into the mountain side.
Just one more glance up that connecting valley before we go down. See that cloud of sand which a wind-burst is carrying from the desert into the valley. That process has been going on for ages. For the archaeologist nothing more fortunate could have happened than this gradual covering with sand, which we have seen so often burying fathoms deep the works of the Pharaohs. Myriads of monuments that rejoice the heart of the Egyptologist would have perished forever, had they not been thus covered by the timely sands and hidden from the destructive hand of the vandal.
Myriads more of just such monuments still remain, secure beneath the friendly sands, awaiting the rescuing hand of the excavator. But these invading sands are anything but a blessing to the peasant. They do not in the long run gain much upon the Nile valley as a whole, but there are certain districts where they have taken complete possession.
Out beyond about midway between us and the tent of our photographer, you notice a transverse line running across the valley. That is the pipe-line of the English engineers, who by thus piping the water from the canal, are rapidly reclaiming the district between the distant pyramid and that on which we stand. We see how the government thus utilizes the Nile inundation in this practically rainless climate, but we must now observe how the native employs the water, furnished him by Providence and the authorities, in the vast network of canals, which we saw from the top of the great pyramid.

domain: geography


: Ford F250 F350 F450 Super Duty CAR Radio ...
Buy Ford F250 F350 F450 Super Duty CAR Radio Stereo Radio KIT Dash Installation MOUNTING Wiring Harness Radio Antenna: Car Dash Mounting Kits FREE ...Ford F Series Super Duty Trucks Wiring Factory Auxiliary ...
If you are looking to use the factory upfitter switches in a Ford F Series Super Duty Truck (F 150, F250, F350, F450, F550) then this tip may be helpful to ...Request a Ford Car Radio Stereo Wiring Diagram ...
Whether your an expert Ford mobile electronics installer, Ford fanatic, or a novice Ford enthusiast with an Ford, a Ford car stereo wiring diagram can save yourself a ...1999 to 2016 Super Duty Ford Truck Enthusiasts Forums
1999 to 2016 Super Duty 1999 to 2016 Ford F250, F350, F450 and F550 Super Duty with diesel V8 and gas V8 and V10 enginesFord Truck Enthusiasts News Ford Trucks
From vintage Dentsides to brand new Super Duty dualies, our newest members have some sweet Ford trucks to share.2015 Ford F 250 Super Duty Overview CarGurus
2015 Ford F 250 Super Duty: See user reviews, 728 photos and great deals for 2015 Ford F 250 Super Duty. Find 53,337 used Ford F 250 Super Duty listings at CarGurus.2017 Ford F 350 Super Duty Parts and Accessories ...
For 2017, Ford F Series Super Duty pickups receive their first ever complete redesign. They now offer best in class towing and hauling capabilities, as well as ...Ford Expedition
The Ford Expedition is a Full size SUV manufactured by Ford. Introduced for the 1997 model year as the successor of the Ford Bronco, the Expedition was the first full ...Request a Ford Remote Start Wiring Diagram ModifiedLife
Whether you’re a novice Ford enthusiast, an expert Ford mobile electronics installer or a Ford fan, a remote start wiring diagram can save yourself a lot of time.2017 Ford F 350 Reviews and Rating | Motortrend
2017 Ford F 350 * Selected Trim * F 450 Super Duty King Ranch 4WD DRW Crew Cab F 450 Super Duty Lariat 4WD DRW Crew Cab F 450 Super Duty Platinum 4WD DRW Crew ...
ford super duty radio wiring harness schematic Gallery
i have an 87 f150 5 0 efi stock took the engine out and then put it back having problems with
wiring schematic for 2002 ford excursion sel ford e
2011 ford f150 radio wiring diagram
i have a 1984 ford f250 8 cyl i have power at the battery new no power at the fuse box
radio harness ford powerstroke diesel forum html
i have a 2004 f350 super duty 6 0 diesel lariat model with the overhead digital temp compass
mini key wiring diagram trusted jetta engine vw pat vuutuut u2022 wiring diagram for free
2000 ford expedition air suspension wiring digram needed
corolla wiring diagram 2003 electrical toyota 1998 2010 stereo diagrams repair guides overall of
headlight wiring diagram - ls1tech
2004 nissan frontier wiring diagram
2006 f350 wiring diagram f350 super duty fuse diagram
2013 jeep wrangler jk fuse box diagram
fresh mercedes c fuse box diagram don 39 ts ideas u2022 wiring diagram for free
1965 mustang wiring diagrams


text:
U.S. government authorities have never been happy with how difficult it is to work around smartphone security. Just yesterday this issue came back to light as the FBI pleaded with Apple to unlock two iPhones believed to be owned by the man who allegedly shot three people at a naval base in Pensacola, Florida. The FBI says it’s already tried guessing the relevant passcodes but has “so far been unsuccessful.”
The government always wants more access — The letter, which was sent to Apple’s general counsel on Monday, comes as no surprise. This is just the latest in a long series of efforts by government authorities to receive special access to otherwise private information.
Just last month, Facebook took a stand against this kind of access by refusing to allow the U.S. government special backdoor access to its messaging services. Apple receives similar requests so often that it has a dedicated page on its website to outline its policies on the issue.
But there’s precedent for the phones to be unlocked — The FBI requested similar access back in 2015 after a mass shooting in San Bernardino. In that case, a federal judge ordered Apple to unlock the phone, which the company called a “dangerous precedent.” Now that prophecy is almost certainly coming true.
Apple is working with the FBI on the case — In a statement on Monday, Apple said it’s already handed over all the information it has. “We have the greatest respect for law enforcement and have always worked cooperatively to help in their investigations,” the statement said. “We will continue to support them with the data we have available.”


text:
Give Every Child The Opportunity for An Education
We are AVS Foundation. We are a 501(c) nonprofit organization that is committed to students and children seeking an education. We aim to reduce barriers to attaining an education by providing students with various opportunities to help them grow and succeed. Together, we can achieve a better world for our children through education.
Education is the key to unlock the golden door of freedom
The Future Leaders
It is of the utmost importance that we keep pushing for changes in our schools, better study spaces for our kids, affordable after-school programs, and healthy lunches. Our children are the next generation, let’s make sure they’re prepared for anything this world throws at them.

domain: sociology


text:
At Robert Half, we understand the importance of employee happiness to your organization. Higher levels of employee engagement lead to greater productivity. And workers who feel valued are motivated to make real, tangible contributions to the company.
Let us help you find professionals who fit your company and get tremendous satisfaction from working to solve your business challenges.
If you’re searching for a new job, or just feeling less engaged with your role than you'd like to be, let us assist you in locating a career opportunity where you can fit and thrive.
IT’S TIME WE ALL WORK HAPPY.™
What it means to work happy
Workplace happiness is really all about the right fit: finding a job with just the right balance of challenge and reward, and building a team of employees who are engaged and productive. Watch our video below to see for yourself.
Learn what makes employees happy in their jobs
What’s the key to employee engagement? How can you build a positive work environment? What's the best way to motivate different types of employees? With the organisational success and employee engagement closely connected, find out the secret to employee happiness.
Many employers have asked what the key is to employee engagement? What is the best way to motivate different types of employees to reach their full potential?
After research with more than 23,000 workers in Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, United Kingdom and the United States – we have the answers that you’ve been looking for.
Through our collaboration with Happiness Works, our report provides a simple and straightforward way to learn:
- Six universal factors for employee happiness
- The unique elements that drive engagement for each age group, experience level and industry
- The connection between happy employees and performance
- Specific steps you can take to increase employee satisfaction
Embedding a culture of workplace happiness
Find out how you can create a culture of happiness at work.
Employee happiness benefits the bottom line
Learn how happy employees can benefit your firm's bottom line.
How managers can create a happier workforce
Connect the dots between the happiness and health of your workers.
Good working relationships lead to increased innovation and collaboration
See how good working relationships lead to higher levels of workplace happiness.

domain: psychology


text:
For age:Above 14 years old
Version: KIT ,NOT YET ASSEMBLED
Note: the picture is the finished product display.
Hull Deck made by 3D print resin.
Detail fitting parts made by 3D print resin.
Brass photo etch
Metal parts made by CNC precision sizing.
- Rich mobility and smooth sailing.
- According to the detailed drawing and data design, the real ship calibration assembly and remote control are easy to operate.
- Select high-quality waterproof materials, restore the details of the real ship, large-scale brass lithography and color decals to make the appearance closer to the real ship.
- Detailed parts are printed together in three dimensions to restore every part of the real ship. Detailed assembly instructions make assembly easier.
- Assembly model suitable for teenagers.
This is a high reduction ship model kit.
Designed by detailed drawing and resource.
Suit for building an RC model or a static display model.
Hull Deck Two in One made by FRP.
Superstructure made by FRP.
Detail fitting parts made by casting resin or metal.
All metal parts such as running set made by CNC precision sizing.
Kit includes colour decal.
Kit includes large size brass photo etch.
Kit includes 3D illustrated step by step instruction.
This kit comes with almost everything that needs to build an RC running model.
Kit includes a hull,Superstructure,Injection parts,CNC-sheets,decals,brass photo etch,motors,stuff boxes,propellers,rudder system,and other running sets.
Electronic devices, such as sero, electronic governor, electronic switches, remote control devices, batteries, paint and glue are not included in the kit and must be purchased separately.

domain: design