The limits of regulation. There is no way to plug all loopholes.
That said, the added labor ensures a more finished product is exported. Was that the intent, or was the intent to force the wood to stay in NZ?
That said, the added labor ensures a more finished product is exported. Was that the intent, or was the intent to force the wood to stay in NZ?
Firewood is a thing. Something like 8-10% of UK electricity (2017) came from firewood harvested in the US.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2018-06-20/uk-s-move-away-coal-m...
It’s worth googling images of swamp kauri if woodworking is your thing, the logs are truely massive.
The article you linked to is a bit woo-woo, especially with all the Douglas Adam's stuff and the number 42. The article did not link to the scientific paper, which is an interesting read. It seems to be open access, so check it out[1].
The concern is that a raw material export based economy is bad for the people who live in the country because most of the value is extracted from the country and only the most unskilled jobs are left.
This type of resource extraction was a hallmark of the colonial era, which is one reason governments are very wary of it.
Sure there is. Just ban export of wood and wooden items.
Inventing new words doesn't magically absolve you of crimes, you know.
Laws have to be specific, and that is the issue. If you can perform a minimal treatment to the object under the law, then it can be transmuted under the law and the spirit of the regulation is sidestepped.
Reason, judgement, and consensus must be part of the process.
To ban the export of unprocessed domestic wood, is it preferable to pre-define and include every possible "process" or is it better to have judges who asses whether any given would-be export is "processed"?
Also, lets skip the argument of regulatory capture/neglect by just agreeing that government transparency/accessibility and voter enfranchisement are critically important to maintaining any reasonable consensus-based system.
I don't see a solution; the obvious choice of trying to make the law more specific and thus less reliant on judgement gets us back to the idea you are opposing.
A murder is an unlawful killing.