NRT: Climate Voter

Written By: - Date published: 12:41 pm, June 25th, 2014 - 33 comments
Categories: climate change - Tags: ,

no-right-turn-256Reposted from No Right Turn.

On Monday, an alliance of environmental organisations launched the Climate Voter campaign. The aim is to get people to signal their intention to vote on the basis of climate change policy, in the hope of driving parties to compete for that bloc of support. The campaign got 10,000 supporters in its first 32 hours, and is currently sitting on 11,300 or so.

I think this is a good thing. At the same time, it needs to get a lot more people to sign up for it to have the sort of impact it wants. While 11,300 voters sounds like a lot – and it is – its about 0.5% of the 2.26 million who voted last election. Which probably isn’t enough to shift anyone’s policies. OTOH, if it grows to 50,000 – around 2% of expected voter numbers – then it might begin to have an impact. If it gets more than 100,000 (a number I regard as highly unrealistic, but hat the hell) then no party will be able to ignore them.

These mass-signalling exercises can work. So, if you care about the climate, sign up.

33 comments on “NRT: Climate Voter ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Polish Pride 1
    25 June 2014 at 1:01 pm

    want to save the planet on climate change. The best thing that can be done is to change the system. Whilst we have the profit motive driving all business there will always be unecessary consumption and wastage. Hell as a business owner I via my business am incentivised to spend and consume as much as I can. The alternative is to give that same money to the tax man. Every business owner faces the same incentive.
    Yes I understand this helps the Economy, yes I understand that paying tax can help others but if your talking about saving the planet then we have possibly the worst system ever for this. We also have politicians that don’t have a clue (as with most things) on how to fix the problem.
    The sooner politicians stop listening to economists and start listening to highly trained and skilled systems analysts to determine how to fix many of the problems we face …well the sooner the root causes of problems can be identified as well as the necessary changes to fix them.
    Until then we are simply wasting our time and our planet for that matter.

  2. Pasupial 2
    25 June 2014 at 3:41 pm

    To give the devil her due; Jenny commented on the launch of the Climate Voter project on the 23/6 Open Mike at comment 38. Unfortunately I couldn’t decipher her point at the time, and when a site demands that I sign-in before giving details my instinct is to click away from it.

    Fortunately the Home page now has some info on it, and the live-update page gives a bit of background:

    http://www.climatevoter.org.nz/live-updates

    The count now stands at 12,446. I’m inclined to make that 12,447.

  3. fambo 3
    25 June 2014 at 3:47 pm

    I think this is a good thing in that it will hopefully get more New Zealanders to focus on climate change as a political issue. I don’t think National will change though because it is the party of vested interests and saving the planet involves some sort of sacrifice of potential profit which it’s supporters will never accept. It will eventually become apparent to the 10,000 supporters and more that this is the case and they will inevitably come to the realisation that they will need to vote for the Greens as the only party who unequivocably take climate change seriously enough to act on it. I wish it could be the way they want it to be with all parties taking climate change seriously but I just don’t believe this is ever going to happen.

  4. philj 4
    25 June 2014 at 7:21 pm

    xox
    Right on PP. The pre eminence of Money and finance has to be changed come the revolution.

  5. Colonial Viper 5
    25 June 2014 at 7:35 pm

    I’m going to sign up.

    Just note that Climate Change is not the biggest challenge facing humanity. Peak energy is. And peak energy is here right now and the suffering and upheaval it will bring the developed western world is already encroaching, right now.

    • weka 5.1
      25 June 2014 at 10:31 pm

      However we can survive Peak energy even if we do nothing. It’s looking increasingly likely that if we carry on BAU re AGW not only will we fry ourselves, we’ll fry everything else too.

      • Colonial Viper 5.1.1
        26 June 2014 at 8:59 am

        However we can survive Peak energy even if we do nothing.

        Who is “we”, though? Without industrial food, transportation, power and water systems 2B or fewer humans will survive.

        If you mean “we” as a species of course I agree with you.

    • Molly 5.2
      26 June 2014 at 8:39 am

      Climate Change is already affecting access to water for countries. That along with extreme weather events IS the biggest challenge facing humanity.

      • Colonial Viper 5.2.1
        26 June 2014 at 9:04 am

        I disagree somewhat; not that climate change will not bring severe and sometimes even catastrophic shocks, it will do that as well.

        But peak energy is eroding every system of our civilisation, has helped caused a severe and ongoing economic malaise going back 10 years now, and for most, access to oil and its benefits will disappear in 2030-2040, NG is going away 2040-2050, and coal in the 10 or so years after that.

        Only a relatively few elite will have the benefits of easy access to fossil fuels after that point.

  6. Jenny 6
    25 June 2014 at 8:10 pm

    Good on The Standard for reposting this.

    This was a brave and principled move

    “The aim is to get people to signal their intention to vote on the basis of climate change policy, in the hope of driving parties to compete for that bloc of support.”

    No Right Turn

    Unfortunately this does not look good for Labour, who according to David Parker (number 2 on the list), told business leaders, that on the substantive issues, coal mining, fracking and deep sea oil Labour’s view’s are “close” to the government’s.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10822510

      • weka 6.1.1
        25 June 2014 at 10:40 pm

        Christ that’s a useless piece of journalism (text). I can’t tell from it what DC actually said, or what Labour policy is.

    • weka 6.2
      25 June 2014 at 10:41 pm

      “Unfortunately this does not look good for Labour, who according to David Parker (number 2 on the list), told business leaders, that on the substantive issues, coal mining, fracking and deep sea oil Labour’s view’s are “close” to the government’s.”

      Two years ago.

      • Jenny 6.2.1
        26 June 2014 at 4:22 am

        Yes of course two years ago, and told to a bunch of business lobbyists, and because of that unusually frank, We were lucky it was even reported at all.

        Weka, your criticism would be valid if you could show any more recent statement that Labour had changed their position.

        The question is, have Labour changed their stance since then? or have they just maintained a strict silence?

        The point of the Greenpeace campaign is to break through the silence, so that people concerned about climate change can make an informed choice.

        What the other news article, which you have correctly pointed out is very confused and inarticulate, is showing that this messy and unresolved dispute inside Labour is threatening to break out into the open.

        We know from previous statements from David Cunliffe, also two years ago, and just before he was attacked and dumped by the ABCs (Parker included) that Cunliffe’s personal views are diametrically opposed to Parker’s.

        When we look back on it, the worst crisis of the 21st century won’t be the ‘Great Recession’ since the global financial crash of 2008 – it will be the ‘Great Compression’ that is coming at us because of energy shocks, climate change, population growth and resource shortage.

        David Cunliffe The Dolphin and the Dole Queue

        Unlike David Parker, David Cunliffe does not deliberately ignore mentioning climate change, but directly addresses it.

        At the heart of the dispute between David Parker the ABCs and David Cunliffe is their differences over environmental issues, and indeed this argument could be summed up as ‘Dolphins vs Dole Queues’.

        Do we sacrifice the environment for economic growth?

        Do we endanger the Maui Dolphin?

        Do we continue destroying the climate?

        When it comes to deep sea oil drilling, Gareth Hughes of the Greens makes the point that if we really want to defeat it, we must fight it on climate change grounds. Openly and without apology.

        Tragically the Maui Dolphin may be in the same position as the Passenger Pigeon in its last days or the California blackbird now. If we can save them as well as saving ourselves, that will be an added bonus and that is the challenge of our time.

        Good on Greenpeace for making this challenge an election issue.

        Good on The Standard for promoting it.

        • weka 6.2.1.2
          26 June 2014 at 9:52 am

          “Weka, your criticism would be valid if you could show any more recent statement that Labour had changed their position.”

          You missed the point Jenny. I don’t have anything to say about Labour on this issue right now. I was just pointing out that you are probably the same misleading and manipulative Jenny that you always were.

          • Jenny 6.2.1.2.1
            26 June 2014 at 10:57 pm

            I was just pointing out that you are probably the same misleading and manipulative Jenny that you always were.

            weka

            Maybe weka you could tell us who you think I am manipulating?

            And what for?

            If you mean manipulating our political leaders by shaming them into doing something about climate change then I plead guilty as charged.

            That you don’t like my efforts is clear from your use of pejorative phrasing and ad hominem abuse.

            That you can’t or won’t challenge any of the points I raise or even make clear your objections to them, exposes you as an environmental enemy who has run out of rational argument.

            That you don’t have anything to say about Labour on this issue, (climate change) at this time, (or ever) is the same deliberate ignoring that the Greenpeace climate voter campaign is trying to break.

            • weka 6.2.1.2.1.1
              26 June 2014 at 11:10 pm

              I do like your effort, just not how you go about it.

              “That you can’t or won’t challenge any of the points I raise or even make clear your objections to them, exposes you as an environmental enemy who has run out of rational argument.”

              🙄 Case in point, telling lies about people who would otherwise be allies in your cause.

              Tell me then, if I am the enemy, what were the last 3 things I said on ts about AGW?

              • Jenny …
                27 June 2014 at 6:06 am

                Tell me then, if I am the enemy, what were the last 3 things I said on ts about AGW?

                weka

                Talk about condemned with your own words, I have attempted to find out just that.

                And I was surprised

                I have just done a search of your, I don’t know how many of your previous comments, (and there were a lot). I read through each and every one to see where you mention AGW, even if only as an aside, or even obliquely, and boy what a tedious job it was. I had to give up and get some rest.

                The last three things that you said about AGW that I have been able to come up with are as follows:

                10:49 pm June 26th, 2014
                http://thestandard.org.nz/nrt-climate-voter/#comment-839712

                They’re asking people to spread the word via social media, email etc 🙂

                7:43 pm June 26th, 2014
                http://thestandard.org.nz/smith-plans-sale-of-trees-to-fund-doc/#commeI

                The other thing at issue here is what will happen to these forests over the next decades and centuries of AGW. If we were sane as a country, we would be leaving the windfall and putting scientists in to study the regeneration and how it is changing over time and what happens to the whole system. Given that high wind events are likely to be more frequent, this seems crucial.

                10:31 pm, June 25th, 2014

                http://thestandard.org.nz/nrt-climate-voter/#comment-838858

                However we can survive Peak energy even if we do nothing. It’s looking increasingly likely that if we carry on BAU re AGW not only will we fry ourselves, we’ll fry everything else too.

                Weka I get it, you are an environmentalist. But as Naomi Klein has described it, climate change is not an environmental issue, sure it will impact on the environment just as a global thermo nuclear war would.

                Sure you admit the reality (and even the consequence), of climate change, how can any rational person deny it.

                http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/barack-obama-climate-change-108338.html?hp=f2

                But it takes more than just admitting something, to going on to demand that something real be done about it, by our policy makers.

                This is where I feel you fall down. In fact you go further than this in personally attacking me for making such demands.

                At best weka I would describe you as a Blue Green, yes concerned about Maui Dolphins and Native Forests but not willing to lift your sights to the bigger and more challenging and admittedly more intimidating spectre of climate change because doing so would mean having to make some uncomfortable changes in perception.

                I can understand this, I just ask that if you can’t find any rational objections to my comments that you don’t descend to personal abuse.

                Lastly I would like to appologise to our readers. I am sorry that this debate has degenerated into acrimony, that is not my wish. But you may understand I need to defend myself from the unwarranted personal attacks made on my character by the likes of weka.

                • Pasupial …
                  27 June 2014 at 6:37 am

                  Jenny

                  My reply to one of your earlier comments has gone into moderation (probably due to the use of a certain word starting with a T [edit – I see its up now]). My main point was; “You’d be more persuasive if you talked to people, rather than at them.”

                  How is Weka; “condemned with [her] own words”? Not agreeing with you in every particular is not the same as being an; ” environmental enemy who has run out of rational argument”.

                  In terms of; “going on to demand that something real be done about it, by our policy makers”, how successful has that been so far? Can you point to one policy of any political party than your interminable demands have altered in the slightest?

                  I remember some time ago suggesting that; if you were dissatisfied with Green Party Environmental policy, that you should join up and get involved in drafting it (I can’t be bothered trawling back through previous comments to get the exact phrasing – you’re right about that being tedious work). The Internet Party also crowd-source much of their policy, so that might be a place to try if the Greens are too main-stream for you.

                  Once again; “You’d be more persuasive if you talked to people, rather than at them.”

                  • weka …
                    27 June 2014 at 10:36 am

                    Thanks Pasupial. It’s weirdly fascinating, how Jenny repeatedly attacks people who are on the same side as her re the issues.

                    Not surprised to see her telling lies about me, this leopard hasn’t changed her spots.

                    • Jenny …
                      28 June 2014 at 4:10 am

                      Not surprised to see her telling lies about me, this leopard hasn’t changed her spots.

                      weka

                      weka you continually accuse me of being a liar.

                      We have differences of opinion, sure.

                      But point out just one lie.

                    • karol …
                      28 June 2014 at 6:52 am

                      As I see it, saying weka is “Blue Green” if not a lie – it’s more an opinion than a fact – is strange.

                      To me a Blue Green is someone who holds right wing values on things like economic and social policy. Things that weka regular argues from a left wing perspective.

                      Jenny’s definition of Blue Green given with that comment:

                      At best weka I would describe you as a Blue Green, yes concerned about Maui Dolphins and Native Forests but not willing to lift your sights to the bigger and more challenging and admittedly more intimidating spectre of climate change

                    • weka …
                      28 June 2014 at 10:10 am

                      Of course you are a liar Jenny, a slipperly one at that. Obviously I’m not on the political right, and obviously I don’t have do Greenlite. That’s all on record on ts. So why bother trying to make out I’m bluegreen or that I don’t care about AGW so long as a few species get saved? This isn’t about us disagreeing on opinion about my politics, it’s about you deliberately misrepresenting my politics.

                      Plus what karol said.

                  • Jenny …
                    28 June 2014 at 4:05 am

                    Can you point to one policy of any political party than your interminable demands have altered in the slightest?

                    Pasupial

                    No, but this position could change very soon.

                    I might add that there are many, many others trying the gentle and polite method of persuasion and they are having about the same amount of success.

            • Pasupial 6.2.1.2.1.2
              27 June 2014 at 6:12 am

              Jenny

              Seriously? You are calling Weka out for; “use of pejorative phrasing and ad hominem abuse”? Do you own a mirror, or are they forbidden by the tenets of your Greener-than-thou creed?

              At least your not “First”ing every Open Mike these days. But I really thought you were a sock-puppet characture of a Screeching Greenie by some RW troll for quite some time there. You’d be more persuasive if you talked to people, rather than at them.

              Anyway; back to the topic at hand. You repeatedly refer to; “the Greenpeace climate voter campaign”. Now, I signed up via Greenpeace myself, but it is important to note that the campaign is a supported jointly by: Forest & Bird, Generation Zero, 350 Aotearoa, WWF & Oxfam NZ; as well as Greenpeace.

              And the count is presently at 14, 796.

  7. Sable 7
    26 June 2014 at 10:53 am

    An excellent initiative but as is often the case like many I had no idea it was even happening until I visited this site. Really need to market themselves to get the message out to the wider population.

  8. evnz 8
    19 July 2014 at 8:21 pm

    If anyone wants to do something about climate change why not simply vote for the Green Party. If enough did you would have a carbon tax after this election. I like the suggestion that if you think the Greens are too conservative,why not join them and have some input into their policy process which is amazingly democratic.