Climate change is too important to lie about

Written By: - Date published: 7:11 am, December 8th, 2014 - 150 comments
Categories: climate change, global warming, science - Tags: , , ,

Yesterday, during an interview with Lisa Owen on The Nation, climate change Minister Tim Groser lied about NZ’s carbon emissions:

I want to look at our current targets. 5% reduction in emissions by 2020; 50% by 2050. …

So are we actually on track to reach that target, minus 5%?

Yes, we are.

No we are not. Here’s last month’s Ministry for the Environment Briefing to the incoming Ministers (pdf) on our emissions:

New Zealand has a long term target of reducing its net emissions to 50% below 1990 levels by 2050. However, our gross emissions have increased by 25% since 1990, and are projected to rise substantially in the time to 2050, based on current settings.

nz-emissions

So when Groser says we are on track to reach our emissions target he is, just like John Key before him, lying. And when called on it (good work Owen) he resorts to the same nonsense tactics as Key. The transcript above continues:

But your own ministry says that our net emissions are going up. In fact, in a briefing paper to you, they said that urgent collective action was required around this, and net emissions are up 20% under National.

Look, there are many different types of benchmarks and statistics. The ones that we are bound to meet are the ones within the Kyoto framework and the ones that we’ve copied and pasted into our next period, which is 2013 to 2020. But there’s all sorts of other projections out there. But the thing is we’re going to do what we said we would do.

So you’re happy with that? You’re happy that your own ministry is raising concerns about your level— our level of emissions? You’re happy with that? Up 20% under your watch?

Oh, listen, New Zealand is going to have to do more in this space over the next 30 years. This is absolutely clear. But what is also certain is that we must do in the context of more collective action.

What about over the next five years, Minister?

I’m more concerned about the next 25 years. What is absolutely crucial in this is that we have got more objectives than just climate change. We also have got jobs and enterprises—

Doesn’t that show a lack of commitment, then, if you’re not worried about this five years. Aren’t you making it someone else’s problem…

No, no, no.

…when it’s an opportunity for you and New Zealand to lead?

Only 7% of global emissions are covered by any type of price on carbon, whether it’s a cap in trade, an ETS scheme like ours or a carbon tax. We’re absolutely doing our fair share. And the key point is this — with 0.15% of emissions, as Sir Peter Gluckman, leading a team of climate change scientists pointed out, the real point of New Zealand doing something is simply its political economy contribution. So we want to be sure that we’re not crippling our economy until we can see more effective global action. Then we will increase the pace.

First instinct, lie. When caught, trivialise and try to deny the science. When pushed, argue that we have to wait for others (who are already moving). When cornered, plead that it’s all about the economy, and promise to act later. Groser is as bad as Key.

Hello National. There is no economy without the environment. This is too important to lie about.

PS – recent headlines:
2014 on track to be hottest year on record, says US science agency
We’re Tired of Telling You These Things, but Last Month Was the Hottest October on Record
Flooding in France and Italy After 163 mm of Rain in 24 Hours
Flood watches in effect after historic western New York snow storm drops seven feet
Longreach tops 40 for 10 days in a row – and there’s more to come
New Zealand far exceeding our fair share of emissions

climate change head in sand-1

150 comments on “Climate change is too important to lie about ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. phillip ure 1
    8 December 2014 at 7:40 am

    because of his selling out our sovereignty with the tpp..

    ..and his being the minister for doing nothing about climate change..

    ..i have long considered groser the most dangerous/injurious for our future/long-term health – of all the govt ministers..

    ..and i have long railed against him…

    http://whoar.co.nz/?s=groser

    ..he..like key..is another one of those bastards who will/can swear that black is white..

    ..and is a fucken traitor..

    …he is selling us out..on multiple levels..

    ..working to turn us into an economic vassal-state of america..

    ..and making us one of the global environmental-villains..

    ..when/where we could/should be leaders of/for change…

    • phillip ure 1.1
      8 December 2014 at 7:57 am

      groser will go into the history books as one of the most reviled political figures of these times..

      ..the passing of time/hindsight will bring much clearer into focus just how groser is both handing our economic/political sovereignty to america/china and rapacious lawyers..

      ..and his driving us at breakneck-speed towards the environmental-abyss..

      ..and how the mainstream media has so had such an epic-fail..

      ..in their failures to report on just what groser is doing..

      ..in both those areas..

      ..they just sit there and nod along to his bullshit/lies…

      ..and in doing so..are complicit/part of the problem..

    • Mike 2.1
      8 December 2014 at 11:44 am

      “To lie when there is so much evidence is criminal.”

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megadrought

      There are too many people now living in areas that have suffered non man made droughts throughout history. It’s ridiculous to claim climate change is all man made, as if droughts and storms haven’t happened in the past. Global warming is a natural phenomena, accept it. You’re not going to stop it by banning open fires in Auckland. Can we ban Volcanic emissions also?

      The top soil on the American great plains can’t be replaced, the water in the Ogallala Aquifer can’t be replenished. We can only manage the situation as it now is. With mans wonderful ingenuity so much is possible. The world changes and man has to adapt.

      Qaddafi built the great man made river project with pipelines coming from three giant aquifers in the Sahara with enough water to green the desert, and enough to last a thousand years. The western war mongers destroyed it all.

      Maybe if all the money and resources spent on the never ending ‘terror wars’ in the middle east……

      • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1
        8 December 2014 at 11:54 am

        “It’s ridiculous to claim climate change is all man made…”

        “Global warming is a natural phenomena…”

        You can’t even get your own lies straight.

        • Mike 2.1.1.1
          8 December 2014 at 12:43 pm

          Sorry, didn’t realise I was lying.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1.1
            8 December 2014 at 12:48 pm

            Which of the statements do you “think” is true, then?

            • Mike 2.1.1.1.1.1
              8 December 2014 at 2:47 pm

              Both.

              • batweka …
                8 December 2014 at 2:56 pm

                Some climate change is man-made then?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                8 December 2014 at 3:02 pm

                Well, the correct answer is “neither”, and you still don’t appear to grasp that they are mutually contradictory statements.

                Baby steps:

                1. No-one claims that changes to Earth’s climate are all man-made, so that’s a lie from the start. The rapid changes currently occurring are, however, anthropogenic in origin, as the changing atmospheric carbon isotope ratio clearly shows.
                2. The climate may warm by natural means. The current warming is attributable to humans as discussed in baby step one.

                The only question remaining is: are you lying deliberately or because you’re a witless dupe? I pick the latter.

        • Paul 2.1.1.2
          8 December 2014 at 6:42 pm

          You sound like a denier…

          [lprent: Here is a warning, Always explain *why* you think that or any other label you want to hand out. Otherwise at some stage I am liable to decide it is pointless abuse (see the policy) and start giving you some very pointed abuse about why I don’t like it. ]

      • batweka 2.1.2
        8 December 2014 at 11:57 am

        “There are too many people now living in areas that have suffered non man made droughts throughout history.”

        And yet we know that some peoples have lived successfully for thousands of years in some of the driest places on the planet.

        Most of our drought problems currently are man-made from unsustainable land management. Burnoff, overgrazing, killing soil microbia via artificial fertilisers and pesticides, monocropping etc all fuck the land so that it can’t hold moisture and then can’t grow plants.

        Fortunately we have people who are practicing solutions to that and building up impressive bodies of knowledge on how to make farming resilient.

        “The top soil on the American great plains can’t be replaced”

        Yes, it can.

        Joel Salatin adds inches of top soil to his farm every decade. He’s not in the desert, but we currently have the technology to restore even the most severly degraded landscapes. Once the cheap oil is gone, that will be much harder.

        Fifty years ago, when the Salatin family first came to Polyface, many areas were so degraded that there was basically no soil. Now, there are 12 inches of soil covering what used to be rock.

        “Everywhere we have deep soil in the world, it was built with herbivores and perennials, periodic disturbance and rest cycles” explains Salatin. “The American buffalo, the bison built the soils that we’re still mining with corn and soybeans. That created the savings account that we’re still drawing on today.”

        Unlike the current devastation and degradation created by most modern agriculture, done correctly, farming should actually build soil, Salatin impresses upon us. Westward expansion was based on wearing out farms and then moving on to the next place. Once most land was exploited and there was very little new land left, thought frantically turned to “how do we build soil?”

        http://transitionvoice.com/2012/07/joel-salatin-and-the-straight-poop-on-sustainable-farming/

        In this 5 min slide show, you will see the establishment of food bearing trees within months in one of the driest places on earth on land that was salinated from misuse by farmers. The team that did this were told it was impossible, and they went and did it anway.

        See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sohI6vnWZmk

  3. RedLogix 3
    8 December 2014 at 8:31 am

    Hello Herald Editor

    Any chance you could get that promising young Cherie Howie to write up a story about how the Minister has ‘secret’ deals going on that he’s plainly lying about.

    I know it doesn’t involve sex so it’s not that interesting – but pretty please – just this once?

    • batweka 3.1
      8 December 2014 at 9:22 am

      I bet they could make it involved sex if they tried really hard though 🙂

      • Murray Rawshark 3.1.1
        8 December 2014 at 9:02 pm

        They just need a picture of Gusher Collins and all the Whalespew Army think of sex. Both Cam and Carrick.

    • Chooky 3.2
      8 December 2014 at 9:53 am

      +100….yes this young journalist needs to be given encouragement to tackle the BIG ISSUES outside the bathroom …like Climate Change

  4. les 4
    8 December 2014 at 9:15 am

    Does anyone think pics of people burying their heads in sand will have any positive impact on the average Joe/Jane lunchbox to the issue?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1
      8 December 2014 at 9:29 am

      If Les’ reaction is anything to go by, pics of people burying their heads in the sand have little positive impact on below-average people.

      On the rest of us, who knows? I don’t think one individual protest would have much impact if that’s all it were, as distinct from an ongoing campaign.

      • les 4.1.1
        8 December 2014 at 9:37 am

        I merely posed a question…do you not know the difference ?Surely a man of self praise like yourself realises that making assumptions often makes one look …quite stupid.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.1.1
          8 December 2014 at 9:51 am

          Yes, butter wouldn’t melt in your mouth. Probably the air-temperature under the bridge where you live.

    • Jackal 4.2
      8 December 2014 at 9:45 am

      Of course it will. Raising public awareness of the “issue” and showing that those responsible are doing nothing about it is an effective means to initiate change, especially in a so-called democracy like New Zealand.

      The clear majority of voters believe that climate change is real and with more and more severe weather events happening around the world it’s becoming even harder to ignore. This can only mean that a change in government is inevitable with parties supporting action and not just words likely to benefit the most.

      The mainstream medias coverage of the protest was generally good, however they have failed to really highlight the fact that the Minister for Climate Change Issues is a blatant liar! In fact the entire National party are a bunch of climate change deniers!

      I have to agree with philip ure on this one…Tim Groser is the worst Minister out there. Not only is he providing false information in a vain attempt to mislead people, he’s also actively undermining climate change negotiations. Groser is an expensive international embarrassment for New Zealand.

    • Molly 4.3
      8 December 2014 at 9:59 am

      Your assumption measures the effectiveness of these types of protests by the number of people who are instantly converted to concern about this issue.

      However, progress is possible in a number of ways that don’t meet this criteria:
      1. People that have never been involved in activism, or political movements may be comfortable in participating in these actions – both increasing participation and experience of participants,
      2. Provides a visual click-bait or hook for the media which is hard for them to dismiss or ignore, and more likely to be used – once again providing another reminder to passive readers or watchers that some kind of movement around climate change is happening,
      3. Does the same for internet networks – and can facilitate online discussions – such as this – where people can become informed.

      Your implied criticism is that unless it can be measured as a success by you, the participation of these people is meaningless. (I had similar views about the standing outside for 3 minutes protest by Christine Rankin regarding domestic violence. I knew that would be the extent of her compassion – so was not inclined to participate). So, I see myself in your comment, and am not particularly comfortable with that position.

      However, in terms of climate change – many people are not aware of what it means, how it will impact on them and how little is being done. Perhaps they will be informed by ongoing discussions that may be triggered by protests such as these and a collective understanding may grow.

      • les 4.3.1
        8 December 2014 at 11:01 am

        I am not concerned about measuring its ‘success’ at all.Some might say this type of protest is counterproductive as it invites the label of ‘loony lefty’ ,type activity rolled out as per the ‘Greens want to print money’!The public at large do not seem to engage in any in depth analysis of alot of issues.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.3.1.1
          8 December 2014 at 11:48 am

          Who gives a fuck what Tory mouthpieces “might say”?

        • Molly 4.3.1.2
          8 December 2014 at 4:13 pm

          … forgot that complaints are easy for some, especially those who complain without providing solutions.

          I am not longer tolerant of those who ask others to act in a particular way before considering whether they have something to say worth listening to. Your use of “loony left” is a label often employed by those who would never consider making a public stand for anything they did not benefit from.

          Myself, I am constantly surprised and heartened by the variety of methods people use to engage. I would expect that most of these would be quite information on the issue if discussion took place at the same time.

    • emergency mike 5.1
      8 December 2014 at 2:39 pm

      Gawd Key floundering in that last link. “Some people have different views about things… There’s two sides to every story…”

      It’s sounding very weak, old, and tired.

  6. BM 6
    8 December 2014 at 10:19 am

    Unless NZ stops being a dairy producer, every one gives up their cars and we get all our power from renewables that target is completely unrealistic.

    NZ population will be over 5 million by 2050, in 1990 the population was 3.4 million.

    Not only do we have to cut emissions to 50% below 1990 levels by 2050, we’ve got to do it with an extra 2 million people.

    Who in their right mind would agree to that, you’d have to be a complete idiot.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.1
      8 December 2014 at 10:29 am

      Unless NZ stops being a dairy producer, every one gives up their cars and we get all our power from renewables that target is completely unrealistic.

      Then what we need to do is to stop being a dairy producer, everyone to stop having cars and to get all our power from renewables.

      Who in their right mind would agree to that, you’d have to be a complete idiot.

      Actually, it’s the people in their right mind who will agree to that. It’s the people who are delusional and complete fucken morons, such as yourself, that won’t.

      • BM 6.1.1
        8 December 2014 at 10:37 am

        So the Greens want to destroy our dairy industry and force every one out of their cars and onto to public transport as well as making every one pay through the nose for power.
        And people around here wonder why the greens top out at 10%.

        The answer is rather obvious, it’s because they’re a bunch of unhinged fundamentalist dicks.

        • Tautoko Mangō Mata 6.1.1.1
          8 December 2014 at 10:40 am

          What term would you then use for a person who made no effort to avert a situation in which the future survival of your grandchildren was severely threatened?

          • BM 6.1.1.1.1
            8 December 2014 at 10:52 am

            Ugh, such emotive hysteria, no one knows what the future holds.

            • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1.1.1
              8 December 2014 at 10:56 am

              But that’s just it, we’ve actually got a pretty good idea as to what the future holds as far as climate goes due to decades of research into it and understanding of physics.

            • vto 6.1.1.1.1.2
              8 December 2014 at 11:12 am

              BM the emotive hysteria is from the likes of yourself….

              …”wah wah wah we cant save ourselves … wah wah … I cant live without a car ”

              muppet

            • McFlock 6.1.1.1.1.3
              8 December 2014 at 12:52 pm

              Ugh, such emotive hysteria, no one knows what the future holds.

              Indeed.
              Your genetic investments might well have been sold off as indentured manual production units well before the second generation is a glint in their overseer’s eye.

        • You_Fool 6.1.1.2
          8 December 2014 at 10:52 am

          The problem is that the reality is as you described – we need to do that to reduce the emissions. You are correct that it isn’t a practical solution; but then the Greens are not advocating that as a practical solution anyway (no matter how much you want to think that). The problem is how do we reduce emissions enough to ensure we have a future (as per peer reviewed solid fact based science) whilst allowing that future to be worthwhile.

          What do you think the best solution is?

          • BM 6.1.1.2.1
            8 December 2014 at 11:04 am

            Put money into technological advancements.

            Every country according to size and wealth should put money into a international fund and use that to develop cleaner energy sources or to making existing energy sources cleaner.

            For example, this is the sort of stuff every one should be getting behind.

            http://aviationweek.com/technology/skunk-works-reveals-compact-fusion-reactor-details.

            People want practical solutions not some bull shit carbon credits
            taxation scheme.

            • You_Fool 6.1.1.2.1.1
              8 December 2014 at 11:09 am

              So are you writing to Tim Grosser to get money spent on green technology?

              Also do you know what one of the main election policies of the Greens last election was?

              I will give you a hint – post the first line of you last comment

            • You_Fool 6.1.1.2.1.2
              8 December 2014 at 11:12 am

              Also I note that you didn’t do any more research on the CFR – as it is not a good investment at all

            • BM 6.1.1.2.1.3
              8 December 2014 at 11:15 am

              Solar won’t work in NZ, we don’t have enough sunlight hours to make it feasible.

              Tidal power could be a goer though.

              I’m thinking, fuel cells, clean burning coal plants, fusion reactors, filters for motor vehicles.

              The world needs both short term and long term solutions, if it’s ever going to transition away from fossil fuels.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                8 December 2014 at 11:26 am

                Solar won’t work in NZ, we don’t have enough sunlight hours to make it feasible.

                You really are an ignoramus aren’t you?

                NEW ZEALAND MINISTRY OF
                ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
                __________________
                Assessment of the Future Costs
                and Performance of Solar
                Photovoltaic Technologies in
                New Zealand

                In summary, the medium to long term potential for PV in New Zealand is little different to that in other developed economies. The New Zealand solar resource is comparable to or better that many areas of Europe. Although PV currently has a higher cost in $/W or c/kWh than other options being examined for New Zealand, including greater use of hydro, geothermal, wind and biomass, it is relatively fast and easy to deploy and can be used in a wide range of sizes and end-use applications. Its output, though weather dependent on an hourly or daily basis, is well predicable over longer periods and is also well matched to loads in the rapidly developing commercial and light industrial areas of the North Island. For these reasons, the potential value of PV is often higher than its cost alone would indicate.

                The world needs both short term and long term solutions, if it’s ever going to transition away from fossil fuels.

                We have them – you and other RWNJs get in the way of implementing them.

              • batweka …
                8 December 2014 at 11:29 am

                “Solar won’t work in NZ, we don’t have enough sunlight hours to make it feasible.”

                more lies, BM

                This is such a huge porky I’m not even going to bother digging up some links for you. But suffice to say that resilient, sustainable energy solutions involve multiple sources and targetting them appropriately. Compare Central Otago (most sunny) to Coastal Otago (most cloudy). But even there you have to realise that are already people living in Coastal Otago using solar power. Duh.

                edit, what Draco said.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  8 December 2014 at 11:35 am

                  BM is in here proving my saying:

                  The political right have to lie because reality doesn’t match their delusion.

                • BM …
                  8 December 2014 at 11:38 am

                  How’s solar working out for Germany.

                  • batweka …
                    8 December 2014 at 11:44 am

                    Why don’t you tell us, then explain how that relates to NZ.

                    • batweka …
                      8 December 2014 at 11:58 am

                      how does that relate to NZ? Specifically.

                      edit, can I just laugh at that Telegraph URL. How energy policies can harm the economy. You still don’t get it BM. Climate change will damage the economy in ways that put current GCFs to shame. But as I’ve pointed out, this is a useless conversation because you really don’t give a shit and are quite happy to live as you do until it all burns.

                    • batweka …
                      8 December 2014 at 12:06 pm

                      Ok, I’m not going to read past the first link because the first one is just daft to bring into this argument. Basically it says that Germany transitioned very fast from nuclear to renewables, found it had a shortfall because it didn’t manage that properly and so had to rely on fossil fuels to prop up its power needs. So both power prices and emissions have gone up in the short term.

                      That’s not a failure of solar tech, it’s a failure of planning and governance.

                      Obviously it’s not applicable to NZ for many reasons, not least size, and the fact that we have so much hydro.

                      All climate change solutions are going to have to involve reduction in use. Sounds like Germany didn’t do that either.

                    • BM …
                      8 December 2014 at 12:13 pm

                      Do you think it’s a good idea to be so reliant on weather dependent energy systems, especially with all the extreme weather events now happening due to climate change?

                      That’s why I said tidal is a good idea, or really clean burning coal plants would be a good idea.

                      Fusion would be the best though, totally revolutionize the world.

                    • lprent …
                      8 December 2014 at 12:53 pm

                      That’s why I said tidal is a good idea, or really clean burning coal plants would be a good idea.

                      Tidal has never been proved to be economic at a commercial level. That is why only a few plants at greater than 200MW have ever been built.

                      There is no such thing as a clean burning coal plant. They all emit CO2. The costs on scrubbing and storing the CO2 would put up the price per MW by at least a factor of 5.

                      I don’t know of any way to store CO2 for more than a few decades – which makes it effectively useless. The process of doing scrubbing and storing the CO2 is likely to cost the majority of the generated power of such a plant.

                      Fusion has been a myth that is only decades away for my entire lifetime. I am 55. The issue is the same as for “clean” coal plants. The cost of containment to date has proved to be about the same as the generated power. At least in fusion, there is a possibility of a fresh approach eventually yielding a solution – unlike coal.

                      All are effectively PR myths. Tidal power is possible if some of the current plants test out as economic. “Clean coal” is just bullshit designed for the consumption of idiots.

                      Basically solar is here and working today. So are wind generators.

                      There is no way that we should be putting nuclear fission into NZ for exactly the reasons demonstrated in Japan. We are in a country that is too geologically unstable to install it in. The risks are far too high.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      8 December 2014 at 1:15 pm

                      Germany found out being reliant of renewables isn’t a great idea.

                      Building up power generation so that you have sustainable generation is an act of economic sanity, continuing to use fossil fuels is insanity. The reality is that we just don’t have a choice if we want to keep using power tools, fridges, telephones etc.

                      I also note that you linked to RWNJ articles that match your delusion.

                    • batweka …
                      8 December 2014 at 1:30 pm

                      “Do you think it’s a good idea to be so reliant on weather dependent energy systems, especially with all the extreme weather events now happening due to climate change?”

                      You’re still not getting it. We don’t have to be reliant on solar. We build in solar where it’s appropriate as part of an overall system that includes many soures of power AND includes a reduction in demand (resilience increases with diversity). Besides, short of a nuclear winter, NZ is not going to lack sunlight. It’s about appropriate, contextualised design for resilience and sustainability.

                      (I’m less keen on large scale windfarms, I would prefer NZ to cut demand and build smaller scale windfarms. I haven’t looked at windfarm resilience to big storm events, but believe that gale force winds are the big challenge for NZ in AGW adaption terms, and we’re still not looking at this seriously enough. But then we’re not taking earthquakes seriously either, which is why some idiots still keep suggesting nuclear).

                      If you really want to talk resilience, consider what’s going to happen the the current hydro infrasructure when the Alpine Fault shifts in the next fifty or hundred years. The South Island is expected to lose all power. Much of the infrastructure will be difficult to reach to fix due to slips and bridges being out. Think months not days (although when you think about Chch’s experience, we may necer actually recover full functionality). Then factor in the further on in time the fault shifts the more expensive it will be to replace infrastructure due to peak oil.

                      True resilience would come from building lots of micro generation that has the capacity to work within the national grid but can be stand alone if/when necessary. You also then get better designed infrastructure because it’s created within the context of local communities, geology and conditions.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      8 December 2014 at 1:30 pm

                      Do you think it’s a good idea to be so reliant on weather dependent energy systems, especially with all the extreme weather events now happening due to climate change?

                      What a load of fucken bollocks.

                      You build a smart grid that utilises and adapts to the conditions across the country. Not enough sun in Auckland? Not a problem because there will be more sun some where else and chances are that there’s an increase in wind that came with that decrease in sun.

                      In other words, it all averages out. And we’d still be having to turn off some of those wind generators off some of the time.

                    • BM …
                      8 December 2014 at 2:24 pm

                      Don’t know if you’ve read this link, it’s quite interesting.

                      http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/energy-and-environment/-clean-coal–technologies/

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      8 December 2014 at 3:18 pm

                      The most promising ‘clean coal’ technology involves using the coal to make hydrogen from water, then burying the resultant carbon dioxide by-product and burning the hydrogen.

                      Oh, FFS – you’d be better off connecting a standard alternator up to your bicycle and that’s not practical.

                    • batweka …
                      8 December 2014 at 3:31 pm

                      BM’s last link is so ridiculous that I can’t take it as anything other than industrial astroturfing.

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      8 December 2014 at 4:02 pm

                      I figure that’s exactly what it is.

              • lprent …
                8 December 2014 at 12:37 pm

                Solar won’t work in NZ, we don’t have enough sunlight hours to make it feasible.

                You’re kidding right?

                My parents live in that foggy crater known as Rotorua. Their solar array on top of the garage provides their power during summer days and feeds a surplus into the grid and about 50-60% pf their household power during winter. That is after the losses converting from DC into AC at household currents and it is a pretty small array.

                The surplus power into the grid reduces the draw down of hydro lakes. They currently draw on the grid at night. But they are considering a storage system to buffer some of their own power into night time.

                I know people with solar arrays in Southland who are getting most of their power from their larger arrays.

                Basically solar systems pay for themselves now. Of course the main reason for that has been the colossal hike in power prices since the 1990’s when National/Acts dickheads started making high profit taking and annual revaluation of paid for assets such a feature of power companies books.

                The only real problem with the solar systems is the power companies. As the solar hardware keeps dropping in price, the power companies are getting worried about their profits and either cutting access to the grid or cutting the prices offered for power being fed into the grid.

                Ultimately the privatized local power companies need to be kicked out of the loop as they have too much of a problem with competition. The power should be fed directly to Transpower, just like any other power producer.

            • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.2.1.4
              8 December 2014 at 11:19 am

              Every country according to size and wealth should put money into a international fund and use that to develop cleaner energy sources or to making existing energy sources cleaner.

              Although I agree that more R&D is a good idea we don’t need an international fund and technologies already exist which means we should be implementing them now.

              For example, this is the sort of stuff every one should be getting behind.

              Not necessarily.

              People want practical solutions not some bull shit carbon credits taxation scheme.

              We have practical solutions – the RWNJs are preventing us from implementing them because that would mean a few rich people would become poor.

            • Bill 6.1.1.2.1.5
              8 December 2014 at 11:46 am

              Putting money into technological advancements is a fine thing. Throwing money at science fiction, not so fine.

              There are many, many technologies that could be rolled out right now and others that could be refined. But market forces tend to throw up disincentives and industries lobby hard to prevent governments legislating their use. (Car efficiency standards are a good example of big oil and car manufacturers uniting to kill standards being introduced in the EU, even though the technology already exists and doesn’t really increase production costs.)

              I agree that carbon credits are not a solution.

              • BM …
                8 December 2014 at 11:57 am

                We just brought a Honda.

                It comes with a V-tec engine, it’s 1500cc but puts out the power of a 2000cc engine.
                Honda designed the engine to get around the engine cc tax the Japanese government imposed on car makers.

                • felix …
                  8 December 2014 at 12:09 pm

                  And yet when taxing carbon emissions is suggested in nz you go batshit.

                  Go figure.

                  Also agree re: carbon credits. Allowing our resources to be treated as a giant casino is how we got into this mess.

            • Jones 6.1.1.2.1.6
              8 December 2014 at 12:25 pm

              But which technologcal advancements…?

              Many of the so-called “green” technologies are anything but, when you consider the supporting technologies required to build and operate them.

              It seems to me the horse has already bolted on climate change, and regardless of what we do now some serious unwinding of industry is inevitable. The knock-on effect of that on consumer-based economics will be impossible to ignore.

              • batweka …
                8 December 2014 at 1:19 pm

                Horses always seemed quite resilient to me, and we probably still have the skill/knowledge here to stop them bolting.

                • Jones …
                  8 December 2014 at 1:30 pm

                  True that… and also true that a plow drawn by a horse is every much a technological solution as a tractor.

                  • b waghorn …
                    8 December 2014 at 7:06 pm

                    I hope you to are joking I’m one of the harder working farm boys I know and I’m not keen on following a horse in circles if this is green thinking baa hum bug

                    • batweka …
                      8 December 2014 at 7:19 pm

                      Naaaay, it’s not green thinking, it’s peak-oil/AGW thinking. What are you going to run the tractor on when all the cheap oil is gone? Or when we eventually have legislation to stop using fossil fuels because the science shows we are approaching runaway climate change? What makes you think there will be a choice to go green or not?

                    • The Al1en …
                      8 December 2014 at 7:21 pm

                      “What are you going to run the tractor on when all the cheap oil is gone?”

                      Whaleoil, it’s dirt cheap.

                    • b waghorn …
                      8 December 2014 at 7:30 pm

                      I’m not quiet ready to roll over and take my family to the hills yet , if you want vote’s get real find solution s .

                    • batweka …
                      8 December 2014 at 9:21 pm

                      “I’m not quiet ready to roll over and take my family to the hills yet”

                      Sure, but what we’re talking about here is strategy and preparation, and whether we should be considering worst case scenarios..

                      “if you want vote’s get real find solution s”

                      I’m not a politician, I don’t need votes. If you are looking for present day solutions, look at the GP policy on their website. You don’t have to vote for them, but they’re the ones who’ve done the serious work on what should happen now.

                      At the moment, I’d suggest looking at working on farms that are heading towards sustainability. That’s where the real solutions are. Govt, farm advisors, even universities/researchers are all following.

                    • b waghorn …
                      9 December 2014 at 7:14 am

                      @weka I’m planning on becoming a manager of a farm so I can implement some of the things I think will help.

            • tricle up 6.1.1.2.1.7
              8 December 2014 at 6:26 pm

              This is how carbon tax credits should be used flowing from a fund into technology or incentives to use buses paid for by a fund and contained cities within cities,the list goes on ,nice circle with benefits.There are some some good articles on a sustainable world and planning…BM the second rock from sun is hotter and more carbon laden than the first rock from the sun suggesting you take a team to study this phenomena..

            • Murray Rawshark 6.1.1.2.1.8
              8 December 2014 at 9:14 pm

              Internationally, we’ve already spent billions on fusion research. Every success comes with two or three new problems. I doubt if this Skunk Works business will be any different. Any other suggestions?

        • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.3
          8 December 2014 at 10:54 am

          I have NFI WTF the Greens want as I’m not a Green Party member.

          The answer is rather obvious, it’s because they’re a bunch of unhinged fundamentalist dicks.

          That would be you, the National Party, the Act Party and probably the Peter Dunne Party. The rest of us are actually connected to reality.

        • batweka 6.1.1.4
          8 December 2014 at 11:25 am

          BM,

          “So the Greens want to destroy our dairy industry and force every one out of their cars and onto to public transport as well as making every one pay through the nose for power.
          And people around here wonder why the greens top out at 10%.”

          I’m assuming the irony of you telling lies about climate change solutions in a thread titled ‘Climate Change is too important to lie about’ is lost on you.

          The Greens want to transition to sustainable land management (farmers still get to make a living, they just don’t get to fuck the land in the process)

          They want to increase public transport in a way that makes it easy to use and readily available (people can still have cars, just not as many and not used in the way we use them now).

          They want to change how electricity is generated, making it more resilient and sustainable, including transitioning to renewables as part of a package that makes it more affordable.

          Oooh, look, the GP have even published well-developped policy that proves you are lying

          https://home.greens.org.nz/policy/agriculture-and-rural-affairs-policy-towards-sustainability

          https://home.greens.org.nz/policy/transport-policy

          https://home.greens.org.nz/policy/energy-policy

          • felix 6.1.1.4.1
            8 December 2014 at 11:52 am

            I think BM was one of the disingenuous liars who used to go around saying that the Greens wanted to force farmers to shoot their cows.

            Remember that? The Greens had said something about the need to reduce the size of the dairy herd to a sustainable level, so Farrar and Slater and Hooton and all the mindless drones who repeat their garbage went to town lying about how this meant shooting cows.

            That’s how much use it is talking climate change with BM.

            • batweka 6.1.1.4.1.1
              8 December 2014 at 12:13 pm

              I did think his lies were particularly bald today.

            • Paul 6.1.1.4.1.2
              8 December 2014 at 9:19 pm

              Yes, here we are trying to discuss a vital issue such as climate change and we have to waste our time listening to the crap BM speaks.
              This stuff was a joke years ago and it still impedes and obstructs constructive discussions about what we can do to deal with climate change.

              • CATMAN …
                8 December 2014 at 10:08 pm

                And yet for some unknown reason he’s welcome to do this here, day in, day out.

                [lprent: We do not moderate on opinion (unless it is particularly disgusting). We moderate on the behaviour that affects our site and it’s objectives.

                Read the policy and stop whining before I have to decide your behaviour is an attack on site rules.

                Deal with what he says with opinion, argument, links and fact. I don’t ‘notice’ those when moderating.

                Leave the moderating to the moderators. They’re a damn sight better at it than your sorry stupidities and bigotry. ]

    • Bill 6.2
      8 December 2014 at 10:38 am

      What NZ needs to do is its fair share of the global 5% per annum reduction in energy related emissions from 2020. That probably entails NZ cutting in excess of 5% per annum while also doing what it can in terms of agricultural emissions.

      That doesn’t mean everyone giving up their cars tomorrow morning or all electricity coming from renewable sources by Monday week.

      • BM 6.2.1
        8 December 2014 at 10:49 am

        No VOTER is going to willingly give up their car
        No VOTER is going to pay $1000 per month for power
        No VOTER is going to voluntary live in some shoe box apartment .
        No SANE VOTER is going to want our largest export earner shut down.

        Unless the Greenies are going to get rid of our democratic system, at every election from now to the end of time, the voter will tell them to fuck off.

        • Draco T Bastard 6.2.1.1
          8 December 2014 at 11:02 am

          No VOTER is going to willingly give up their car

          This voter already has.

          No VOTER is going to pay $1000 per month for power

          Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels.

          No VOTER is going to voluntary live in some shoe box apartment .

          Tell that to the thousands of people already living in apartments and the thousands, and probably millions, more that actually want to.

          No SANE VOTER is going to want our largest export earner shut down.

          We must, absolutely must, live within our ecological means which means that a person who doesn’t want to seriously curtail our most unsustainable industry is not sane.

          • lprent 6.2.1.1.1
            8 December 2014 at 1:06 pm

            I have a 16 year old car, Lyn has a 22 year old one. We use them for longer trips. I fill my tank no more than every 8 weeks these days and the time between fills is steadily increasing.

            We live in 51 sq metre apartment in Grey Lynn that has two car parks because it is a whole lot easier than living out in the boondocks and wasting several hours a day commuting.

            Our power bill even with my computers running all of the time is something like $140/mo. That is because it is a well insulated and well designed space that doesn’t leak energy through empty areas and large windows. I’d point out that even with massive price hikes by the power companies that the power bill is smaller than it was 10 years ago. Computers, TVs, and every other appliance apart from the oven has been replaced with more efficient gear. I’m having a slow start to replacing the low power flouro lightbulbs with even lower power leds at present because the damn things never seem to die.

            When I look at the garage, probably less than a quarter of the cars move during the weekdays. Three years ago it used to be well more than half. More work has moved into walking distance and the public transport has improved a lot.

            Dairy may be our biggest export earner. However I suspect that it’s *average* profit margin absolutely sucks. If you (optimistically) take $4-$5 a kg of milk-solids as being its long-term price, I’d say that the return to the country is only a few percentage with the current mix of exported product. In other words, probably less than could be gained from putting your money into a bank – a relatively risk free investment.

            All intensive dairy farming, in unsuitable areas does, is to suck up desperately required capital away from more productive enterprises and leave a complete mess of rivers.

            And you should measure any export industry against its sustainable costs and opportunities. We used to export a hell of a lot of wood and flax for shipping until we’d cut down forests and sailing ships went out of style. I’d expect that unless we go upmarket the same will happen to dairy.

            • Poission 6.2.1.1.1.1
              8 December 2014 at 2:57 pm

              The auckland light passenger fleet growth (2009-2013) is greater then the total Taranaki LPF. ie 68624 vs 67568.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                8 December 2014 at 9:03 pm

                And in relation to population so that we can compare the two areas accurately?
                Also what’s the comparison to the previous 5 years and the 5 years before that and before then going back to 1950.

        • You_Fool 6.2.1.2
          8 December 2014 at 11:06 am

          So what is your solution to the known and proven problem of climate change? Knowing that if we continue with what we are doing (even in NZ) that we will ruin the planet, how do you propose to reduce out impact on the environment?

          • batweka 6.2.1.2.1
            8 December 2014 at 11:39 am

            He doesn’t. BM wants to party while the Titanic is going down, then quickly fly off to his Mad Max fantasy (presumably in a helicopter with the last bit of cheap fuel available). Basically he doesn’t give a fuck about anyone or anything that isn’t to do with his wellbeing or desire. He’d rather see the whole world burn than give up his new iphone or being able to drive wherever he wants whenever he wants in his own car on his own.

        • Bill 6.2.1.3
          8 December 2014 at 11:27 am

          No VOTER is going to willingly give up their car.

          Enforcing efficiency standards on car manufacturers, with currently available technology, would see massive reductions in emissions over something like a ten year period. During that time, changing habits around occupancy could add to reductions.

          No VOTER is going to pay $1000 per month for power.

          Efficiency standards on domestic appliances would result in less consumption and as long as gouging by electricity companies is curtailed, then domestic electricity bills of $1000 per month would seem unlikely.

          No VOTER is going to voluntary live in some shoe box apartment .

          No idea where you’re getting this shoe box thing from. But given that many, many people are living in garages or rotting, fucked up houses and that NZ just isn’t building anything like enough houses for our population…

          No SANE VOTER is going to want our largest export earner shut down.

          If nothing is done about emissions, then climate change will shut down dairy…and most other industries insofar as the effects of climate change will collapse the market system.

          The thing is BM, we either voluntarily, radically alter how we operate as a society, or we carry on ‘as is’ and have everything taken from us by the effects of global warming. Either way, massive, probably unprecedented change is coming. The only question is how much influence you want to have over that change.

          • batweka 6.2.1.3.1
            8 December 2014 at 11:40 am

            “Enforcing efficiency standards on car manufacturers, with currently available technology, would see massive reductions in emissions over something like a ten year period. During that time, changing habits around occupancy could add to reductions.”

            And at the same time, making public transport accessible and readily available will make a huge difference. Many people are ready to use their cars less but they currently don’t have that option.

          • Paul 6.2.1.3.2
            8 December 2014 at 9:09 pm

            Not sure bm accepts climate change is happening.
            Sounds like a denier.

        • Jones 6.2.1.4
          8 December 2014 at 1:04 pm

          They will do when the environment says “no”!

        • tricle up 6.2.1.5
          8 December 2014 at 6:56 pm

          B M forget the greens this issue is about amplification in our atmosphere and ground based systems . What you and i can do sitting on the plane of reality is to consider relevant data and not side issues.. Not a greens voter but can still see merit in future planning..

        • Paul 6.2.1.6
          8 December 2014 at 9:21 pm

          And that voter’s kids are going to have to deal with his selfishness.

    • Zolan 6.3
      8 December 2014 at 10:53 am

      “Who in their right mind would agree to that” i.e. “cut emissions to 50% below 1990 levels by 2050.”

      It’s a target, not a contract with added penalties.

      You seem to be arguing that we cannot reduce emissions at all because there are limits on how much currently seems acheivable. i.e. Hard goals make smaller gains impossible. We can’t fly because the moon exists.

  7. Bill 7
    8 December 2014 at 10:32 am

    This New Zealand has a long term target of reducing its net emissions to 50% below 1990 levels by 2050 crap really does need to kicked into touch. Under that ‘programme’, there is no commitment to cutting emissions now, nor between now and 2049. Politicians will inevitably kick the can down the road and do sweet fuck all about rising emissions on the ‘understanding’ that somehow, massive overnight cuts will be made in 2049 when they themselves are not in office, are not responsible, are dead, or whatever.

  8. johnm 8
    8 December 2014 at 11:41 am

    The Government takes the de facto position that no matter what NZ does will make any difference now. Up to 4c is baked into the cake maybe as early as 2050, that’s extinction level. The Chinese will keep on building their power stations no matter what.That we can change things now is blowing smoke up our asses! E.G. look how everyone loves to fly places.

    • Colonial Rawshark 8.1
      8 December 2014 at 1:36 pm

      China is shifting their power generation strategy away from thermal coal, but yes, they will be building new coal fired stations for a long time to come. China has been responsible for the majority of increased global coal usage over the last 10 years and the numbers keep climbing.

      Up to 4c is baked into the cake maybe as early as 2050, that’s extinction level.

      Extinction level for humans? No, I think a couple of billion humans will manage to survive through a 4 deg C avg increase. It probably won’t be that pleasant though. And quite a lot of insects, rodents, parasites and other pests will do fine.

      • batweka 8.1.1
        8 December 2014 at 5:39 pm

        The problem with 4C is the potential for runaway climate change and multiple ecosystem collapses. Humans might theoretically be ok as a species, but we won’t really know until we get there (happy thought).

        A hard collapse will also bring the problems of nuclear pollution and all the weird shit they’re currently keeping locked up like viruses and medical/chemical experiements.

        • b waghorn 8.1.1.1
          8 December 2014 at 7:14 pm

          That’s a new and scary outcome I and I bet most people haven’t thought of re’nuclear pollution’ how many nuclear reactors are on coast s and how would sea level rises affect them .

          • BM 8.1.1.1.1
            8 December 2014 at 7:20 pm

            Don’t take the doomers too seriously, they’ve been preaching this end time stuff for a loooooooooooooong time.

            • The Al1en 8.1.1.1.1.1
              8 December 2014 at 7:22 pm

              Probably as long as you’ve been denying it.

              • BM …
                8 December 2014 at 7:35 pm

                Lol, I used to live at peakoil.com, it was “the end is nigh, the end is nigh”, endlessly.

                I remember when oil broke the $45.00 barrel mark which was supposed to trigger the collapse of the worlds economic system.

                Every one was long bunkers and guns, waiting for the Apocalypse to unfold.

                We waited and waited and thought “what the fuck is going on, there should be zombies at the door queuing up to eat our brains”.

                As you probably have guessed the zombies were a bit of a no show and I learnt a valuable lesson.

                Never under estimate the ability of humans to adapt and also take peoples opinion who have a vested interest in a particular topic with a cynical mindset.

                • The Al1en …
                  8 December 2014 at 7:36 pm

                  “the zombies were a bit of a no show”

                  All depends where you look – There’s plenty about.
                  Try the act party and grosser’s office for starters.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  8 December 2014 at 8:18 pm

                  I remember when oil broke the $45.00 barrel mark which was supposed to trigger the collapse of the worlds economic system.

                  Did you happen to notice the GFC that happened shortly after?

                  • BM …
                    8 December 2014 at 8:24 pm

                    Broke $45 back in 2004, spiked to over $140 around 2008 and then the arse fell out of the market and the price crashed to around $40.

                • Paul …
                  8 December 2014 at 9:11 pm

                  Are you willfully ignorant, does someone pay you to be ignorant, or are you just plain ignorant?

                  • McFlock …
                    8 December 2014 at 9:25 pm

                    I suspect BM is merely building a portfolio for free, and has visions of becoming the next Carrick Lusk McSlug or whatever. Nobody would really pay for bm’s shit, but they still have a definite tory plan – deny reality, and try to stir shit amongst the left.

            • Draco T Bastard 8.1.1.1.1.2
              8 December 2014 at 7:26 pm

              Don’t take BM or other RWNJs too seriously as they’ve been denying reality for a loooooooooooooong time.

            • Paul 8.1.1.1.1.3
              8 December 2014 at 9:10 pm

              What is required from you to understand Science?
              Or do you believe the Koch Brothers propaganda?
              Muppet.

            • Anne 8.1.1.1.1.4
              8 December 2014 at 10:22 pm

              Yeah BM @ 8.1.1.1.1, they’ve been preaching this end time stuff for a long time because it started happening quite a looooooong time ago.

              When the evidence becomes so irrefutable (as it will in the coming years) you deniers will go to ground and never be heard from again. I can just picture it. You, Leighton Smith, the handful of pseudo scientists who spout their faked garbage and the rest of your ilk around the world will be racked with guilt because it is the likes of you… so blinded by idiot ideology (as if it’s an ideological matter) and your ‘flat-earth thinking’ that will ensure the planet goes to hell in a hand-basket. Your kids will rue the day they ever had such diabolically ignorant and stupid parents.

  9. George Hendry 9
    8 December 2014 at 11:58 am

    Congratulations people.:)

    It has recently been alleged that people posting on The Standard can be just as vicious as Cameron Slater, in the process of furthering ‘the left do it too’ and inadvertently complimenting the coherent debate that goes on here.

    In case this gets properly investigated and we are not found to have been vicious enough, we need to be wound up enough to lose our cool if possible. This seems to have been BM’s job this morning and it definitely surpasses all his previous efforts that I have seen.

    BM – do you troll

    A) at minimum wage, zero hour contract;

    B) at living wage, PM’s taxpayer-funded black ops account;

    C) contract rates, so much for each personal attack provoked, with a bonus for each thread successfully derailed;

    D) on your own time, wearing your own hat

    ?????????

    Please be aware that any vicious replies will be (eventually, when the context catches up with the initial smear) balanced against the level of provocation that preceded them. The great thing about these archived blogs is how the evidence remains and is so easy to retrieve.

    Having said all that, I will now hide in my house and refuse to answer questions.

    • greywarshark 9.1
      8 December 2014 at 9:57 pm

      @ George Hendry
      You win today’s ‘If’ award for wise words about not getting riled by BM et Al (Fresco, Capone?).

      If– by Rudyard Kipling
      If you can keep your head when all about you
      Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
      If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
      But make allowance for their doubting too;
      If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
      Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
      Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
      And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:
      http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/175772

  10. Colonial Rawshark 10
    8 December 2014 at 1:32 pm

    Personally, I think NZ’s CO2 emissions from fossil fuels will easily hit the 50% reduction target by 2040. It’s going to be ugly, it’s going to be involuntary, and we’ll wish that we were far better prepared with low carbon infrastructure and systems that we should be putting in place now, but that’s the way it will be.

  11. aerobubble 11
    8 December 2014 at 1:51 pm

    Mars has an atmosphere due to co2 and ch4 being greehouse gases. Digging up carbohydrogens and burning them into the atmosphere means anyone who denys climate change is lying, unless they have evidence for the planet reburying them or something. Its a sickness what Republicianism has become.

  12. coaster 12
    8 December 2014 at 4:14 pm

    My 10 cents worth.
    solar is not suitable for somè parts of nz, I live on the west coast, its rained a hell of a lot in the last 2 months.

    there is not public transport in most rural locations in nz, what would be the alternative option if we give up cars.

    hydro is renewable, there are a few locations on the west coast that could be dammed.

    if we give up our industrys we will become third sorld, and then in a short period of time we will go in the opposite direction from any conservation, or carbon emmision reductions.

    burying your head in the sand is the stupiďist publicity stunt ive seen in a long time.
    it doesnt make anyone take you seriously.

    1. Climate change is hppening.
    2. It nedds to be taken seriously.
    3. We need sensible serios ways to reduce carbon emmisions whilst still alowing people to live like or as close to as they have been.

    just like the prohibition failed, so will banning cars.

    • The Al1en 12.1
      8 December 2014 at 4:19 pm

      3. We need sensible serios ways to reduce carbon emmisions whilst still alowing people to live like or as close to as they have been.

      Arguably way too late for that.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 12.2
      8 December 2014 at 4:23 pm

      It’s an easy strawman, isn’t it: “banning cars”. In reality cars are heavily regulated already; you simply don’t have a laissez-faire right to trundle around in anything you damn well please.

      You may find particular types of fuel becoming less and less available puts a bit of a spanner in your inalienable right to worship at the altar of petrol, too.

      • batweka 12.2.1
        8 December 2014 at 5:45 pm

        this, really. No-one has said anything about banning cars.

        “there is not public transport in most rural locations in nz, what would be the alternative option if we give up cars.”

        Public transport. No-one is suggesting that we lessen car use without a corresponding increase in public transport.

        I also live rurally.

        When my mother was a child they had no car. She used to get to school by horse and trap. After school they had to start walking home, sometimes for a long way before their dad arrived to give them a ride.

        When I was a kid I went to primary school by walking 5 blocks and high school on a bike, 2 km one way.

        My sister’s kids now get rides to school despite living the same or less distance.

        These are all things we can adjust to. Climate change that makes growing food difficult, or creates massive weather events that displace people regularly, not so much.

        • greywarshark 12.2.1.1
          8 December 2014 at 7:47 pm

          Reading about how kids used to get to school made me think of a very funny Giles cartoon. There was a strike over there and the buses etc were out and the well clothed Mums and Dads were helping their little princes to get to school – one pair were finally teaching their 10 year old to walk ‘Yes now put the other foot forward dear”, some had theirs in a Chinese palindrome, one had them stacked on his shoulders, another couple had taken a door off the house and had junior sitting up in the middle etc. The idea was to keep their feet off the nasty common pavement.

          It’s a fact that there is a lot of picking up in cars here to transport the young ones to sport, music, dance lessons, or perhaps extra tutoring.

    • Draco T Bastard 12.3
      8 December 2014 at 5:18 pm

      solar is not suitable for somè parts of nz, I live on the west coast, its rained a hell of a lot in the last 2 months.

      Solar voltaic cells also work when it’s raining. I also note the existence of large numbers of hydro-electric dams in the near vicinity.

      there is not public transport in most rural locations in nz, what would be the alternative option if we give up cars.

      Try walking or bicycling.

      hydro is renewable, there are a few locations on the west coast that could be dammed.

      Actually, NZ is pretty much dammed out. That’s a major reason why we need to look to other means of generation.

      if we give up our industrys we will become third sorld, and then in a short period of time we will go in the opposite direction from any conservation, or carbon emmision reductions.

      Who said we’d give up our industries? That said, since neo-liberalism took over we’ve been losing them anyway.

      burying your head in the sand is the stupiďist publicity stunt ive seen in a long time.
      it doesnt make anyone take you seriously.

      Your own personal opinion isn’t reality no matter how much you would like to think it is.

      We need sensible serios ways to reduce carbon emmisions whilst still alowing people to live like or as close to as they have been.

      We can afford to maintain a reasonable living standard. We can’t afford quite a lot of what we take for granted today because we simply don’t have the resources to maintain them.

    • Paul 12.4
      8 December 2014 at 5:40 pm

      The fact is unless we think up solutions we’ll have to give up cars.
      We either plan for change or have it forced on us.
      Coaster, nature doesn’t negotiate.

      • batweka 12.4.1
        8 December 2014 at 5:50 pm

        +1

      • b waghorn 12.4.2
        8 December 2014 at 7:23 pm

        Here’s some solutions for you Paul
        Solar panels on all new houses and renovation s over 50k.( force power companies to buy excess at market rates.)
        Slash taxes and license fee’s on electric cars.
        All packaging to be biodegradable within 10 years.
        Plant the unproductive tussock country in Douglas fir ( the time for trying to keep the country the same has long past)

    • Murray Rawshark 12.5
      8 December 2014 at 10:35 pm

      Who’s talking about banning cars? I’d be happy for the vehicles we need to be far more efficient, and a lot more use to be made of public transport. In almost all areas, that means we need to build public transport infrastructure. We can’t go on as we have been indefinitely. On your coast, for example, how would you like double the rainfall and 5C hotter temperatures? That’s the sort of thing we’re looking at if we don’t change.

  13. coaster 13
    8 December 2014 at 5:33 pm

    There are still dams to go ahead down here.

    biking and walking are fine over reasonable distances on fine days when you dont have alot to carry, but this is the real world we live in.

    The opinion I have about the sticking your head in the sand stunt is shared by numerous people I have spoken to today. Climate change is happening, we have to convince average people it is happening to get change, that stunt made the whole thing look like a joke.

    someone got played or set up, and theve made the people who are trying to gdt people to realise things need to change ,look stupid.

    • batweka 13.1
      8 December 2014 at 5:50 pm

      “biking and walking are fine over reasonable distances on fine days when you dont have alot to carry, but this is the real world we live in.”

      Public transport, bike, walk, scooter, motorbike, horse, horse and carriage, boat, I’m sure the list is much longer than that.

      How old are you? What did your grandparents do?

    • Paul 13.2
      8 December 2014 at 5:53 pm

      At lest they did something.
      What are you doing, apart from grumbling?

  14. Draco T Bastard 14
    8 December 2014 at 8:21 pm

    If this is true then a) Trust Power needs to be fined several million dollars for manipulating the market b) proves that renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels and c) proves that renewables can easily replace fossil fuel.

    And then there’s this:

    Instead of a 2,000-hp diesel engine — which powers the current ferry and sucks up over 264,000 gallons of fuel each year — ZeroCat features an 800 kW battery that weighs 11 tons and drives two screws. Though the battery is quite heavy, the ship only weighs half as much as a conventional catamaran ferry, thanks to twin hulls made of aluminum. Those hulls are a slim design, which further increases efficiency, with Siemens estimating the ferry will need only 400 kW to cruise at 10 knots.

    Going to full renewables is possible but we’re being held back by vested interests.

  15. Draco T Bastard 15
    8 December 2014 at 9:18 pm

    Solar energy world first for Australian scientists

    In what the University of New South Wales described as a world first, the researchers were able to convert more than 40 per cent of sunlight hitting the panels into electricity.

    Professor-Martin-Green-UNSW-solar-expert“This is the highest efficiency ever reported for sunlight conversion into electricity,” UNSW Professor Martin Green said in a statement.

    “We used commercial solar cells, but in a new way, so these efficiency improvements are readily accessible to the solar industry,” added Dr Mark Keevers, the UNSW solar scientist who managed the project.

    This is technology that is available today which means that the price of solar power just dropped by close to half. Fossil fueled power generation just became obsolete.

    • Murray Rawshark 15.1
      8 December 2014 at 10:52 pm

      At best it has become obsolescent, given that it is still being used. It’s also likely that Martin Green will lose his Australian research funding in favour of clean coal or some such garbage.

  16. Red delusion 16
    8 December 2014 at 11:12 pm

    Any one notice how cold it looked in Wellington, all those protesters in bush shirts, coats and scarves in December

  17. Phil @ Pratchett Joinery 17
    9 December 2014 at 5:08 am

    So long as there are vested interests in climate change debates there will be lies. It’s disgusting that politicians feel they have to lie to the people.

  18. Dan Pangburn 18
    10 December 2014 at 7:31 am

    Search “agwunveiled” to discover:
    1. Historical evidence that CO2 change does not cause climate change.
    2. The two factors that correlate 95% since before 1900 with average global temperature.
    3. An explanation of WHY CO2 change does not cause climate change.

    [r0b: Yes, there is plenty of denier idiot fantasy on the web. So what?]

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.