web analytics
The Standard

The cost of doing nothing

Written By: - Date published: 6:15 am, August 17th, 2009 - 54 comments
Categories: climate change - Tags:

The climate change debate is over (apart from a few luntatics of course). The debate is now about what to do, and the current focus is on the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately we’re only getting half of the story on the costs. Here’s a typical example of half-assed coverage:

National has set a target of 10-20% reductions, depending on how ambitious other countries are. The mid-range is 15% which, according to the admittedly tenuous economic analysis, carries a cost of about $30 per week, per person over the next decade.

Labour says the government isn’t being ambitious enough. How much more does Labour think the public is willing to pay to meet New Zealand’s climate change obligations, given we represent just 0.2% of the world’s emissions?

Such estimates are tenuous indeed (the cost may be lower). And the waters are further muddied when the minister in charge spouts absolute nonsense costings. But the cost of action (whatever it is) is only half the story. We aren’t being told the other half. What is the cost of doing nothing? It is much higher.

If climate change goes unchecked, if New Zealand doesn’t play it’s part in responding, expect many more headlines like these:
“Drought costs NZ $2.8 billion”.
“100 per cent Pure brand ‘under threat'”
“Tourism industry takes battering in trying times”

Environmental concerns aside, even in purely economic terms, the cost of doing nothing is much higher. Our own local studies show this — “Economic models support action on climate change”. International studies show this — “Climate change inaction ‘will cost trillions'”. The UK Stern Report (also e.g. here, here) examines the economics in detail, and the take home message is stark:

– The cost of reducing emissions could be limited to around 1% of global GDP;
– Unabated climate change could cost the world at least 5% of GDP each year; if more dramatic predictions come to pass, the cost could be more than 20% of GDP.

So let’s say it again – the cost of doing nothing is much greater. Treasury is starting to get it. Some of our smarter business people get it. One way or the other we are going to pay. We can pay now to reduce emissions (maybe 1% of GDP), or we can pay much, much more (5-20% of GDP) — not today, but sooner than we think ….
– r0b

54 comments on “The cost of doing nothing”

  1. Andrei 1

    The climate change debate is over (apart from a few luntatics of course). The debate is now about what to do,

    In science the debate is never over – but the climate change debate has never been about science it has always been about elitists keeping ordinary people in poor in order to maintain control over them.

    Galileo Galilei you may recall was called a LUNATIC because the elites of his day were threatened by his assertion that it was more convenient t to view the sun at the center of the solar system.

    The good doctor whose piece you link is indeed a member of the elite and knows full well which side his bread is buttered on and so he utters his unscientific crap in order to maintain his position.

    And you are too stupid to see this – which is why you are one of the ruled over.

    • exbrethren 1.1

      And of course the institutes providing the ‘science’ that shows climate change isn’t happening that are funded by Exxon aren’t part of any elite.

      Do you still believe the same institutes Philip Morris funded research that smoking doesn’t give you lung cancer?

    • Zorr 1.2

      Galileo wasn’t actually called a lunatic in his day. He was one side of the debate about the planetary models proposed at the time. The older, more “believable” (but completely unscientific) Ptolemaic geocentric system was what was commonly held as the truth… or the newer, demonstrable Copernician heliocentric model.

      I think the term you were looking for was heretic, not lunatic. And the Catholic Church has never been on the forefront of science OR sanity.

      • Andrei 1.2.1

        And the Catholic Church has never been on the forefront of science OR sanity.

        Nor has the left; let me give you another name: Trofim Lysenko

        • Zorr 1.2.1.1

          Did I bring politics in to it? No. You brought up the scientist Galileo who was accused by the Catholic Church of heresy. Hence why I brought up the fact that they aren’t a particularly reliable source of scientific information.

          I have never stated my own personal political leanings. However, I would be sure that to a large extent they are a) personal and b) my own interpretation of how things should work. Hence making broad generalizations about the “side” I am on particularly inaccurate and, moreso, just lashing out.

          captcha: concerning

          • Andrei 1.2.1.1.1

            Phooey – This post is pivoted on a Herald opinion piece which labels various scientists who do not go along with this BS as stupid..

            Do you not see the utter absurdity in a herald journo calling scientists who have spent their lifetimes studying these issues “stupid”?

            • NickS 1.2.1.1.1.1

              That would be because many of the “scientists” are either not climatologists, or stuff up in literature reviews when doing the statistics sides of things, or if they are, have rather spurious reasons for rejecting the consensus. Sort of like the situation with “scientists” HIV and Evolution denial.

              • lprent

                That is my impression. There is one old aussie sedimentologist who is a denialist, but no-one else that I’m aware of who isn’t from outside of the field or employed by companies with vested interests.

            • Zorr 1.2.1.1.1.2

              After flicking through those articles again I didn’t see the names of any scientists… only skeptics.

              If you could point out the names of the scientists that are against the theory of anthropogenic induced climate change in those pieces I would be glad to know.

            • Andrei 1.2.1.1.1.3

              Scientists are skeptics Zorr. That’s the way science works, its not like politics, you know, where you go along to get along.

              And it certainly not like political activism where you jump to conclusions based upon your ideology

    • NickS 1.3

      w00t, 50+ crank points for the Galileo Gambit;
      http://oracknows.blogspot.com/2005/03/galileo-gambit.html

      20+ for history of science mega-fail, since that’s not why Galileo’s views were rejected, it was due in part to the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems insulting a rather important person in the Catholic Church, plus prevailing views about natural philosophy concerning models that I can’t be bothered getting into. Which also, 17th century “science” is not the science of today, being another history fail on your part.

      Another 20+ crank points for basic science fail. While “debate” is constant, the nature of the debate matter, e.g. with evolution, there’s current debates over the roll of changes in gene regulation, the fine details of speciation and deep phylogeny, but the core stuff is solid and accepted. Climate change is similar, in that the gross details, namely that CO2 (and methane, and nitrous oxides) is the main climate driver in terms of current changes in global temperature, and is due to anthropogenic emissions, the “debate” centres around feed-back cycles, and whether the IPCC rate of projected warming is too conservative. Since factoring in the feed-back loops gives much higher rates of warming, due to methane release from permafrost and soils + increased atmospheric water content. There’s also a few modelling issues, but none-the-less, the core science is settled enough that we can have the same degree of “certainity” with climate change, as we do have with evolutionary biology, or with slightly better fit, HIV being the causative agent of AIDS

      And +20 crank points for the conspiracy charge.

      [note to self, find the crank-list at some point]

  2. lprent 2

    Great post.
    This will give me some loons for dissection (purely in the interests of science). I’ve doing too much work and not enough play.

    How about getting a author login?

    • r0b 2.1

      How about getting a author login?

      Cheers for the offer Lynn – I don’t know if I can be regular / reliable enough to join the core posters. We should discuss via email.

  3. Mark M 3

    You complain that the Governments figures are incorrect but hide your name , credentials and sources of information.
    If you are going to convince any one you have an argument lets see it.
    I am sick of seeing an important argument being based on bitter ideology

    • r0b 3.1

      You complain that the Governments figures are incorrect

      The government (and their science advisor) seem to understand the figures OK – see the first link in the post. So I’m not complaining that their figures are “incorrect”, I’m complaining about the short sighted arguments they (and most reporters) are using to justify a reduction target that is too low. We are going to pay – the question is when and how much – but we are going to pay.

      but hide your name , credentials and sources of information.

      My name is r0b. I’m not arguing based on my “credentials” because if credentials won arguments then there wouldn’t be any climate change deniers (follow the first link in the post, there is overwhelming agreement among those with the credentials). So in this post it doesn’t matter if I have School Cert French or three PhD’s in climate science, the argument stands or falls on its own merits. (If you really really want the argument to be about credentials, the again, go follow the first link in the post, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are in agreement). And my sources of information are amply documented – follow the links.

      If you are going to convince any one you have an argument lets see it.

      My argument is set out in the original post.

      I am sick of seeing an important argument being based on bitter ideology

      Me too, so I tried to make this case a purely economic one. We are going to pay – the question is when and how much – but we are going to pay.

    • lukas 3.2

      Mark M, a point that I agree with over here

      • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1

        Is that the letter that several scientists didn’t know that they had signed?

  4. It’s not over. The stuff and scoop articles you link to are retarded. There’s not evidence to even show they are linked.

  5. ben 5

    Meh.

    I can’t see the sense in poor people (us) making sacrifices for vastly wealthier people (those living 100 years from now). Even if GDP is reduced by 20% a century from now, they will still be vastly wealthier than us.

    The greater danger, by a long way, is the tremendous concentration of power into the hands of a few politicians that green policy produces. Whether those guys wear red ties or blue ties, no good can come from handing a few men and women so much control.

    As the old saying goes: socialism didn’t work at 17 degrees. It won’t work at 19 either.

    • Conal 5.1

      I bet people were saying the same thing when they chopped down the last tree on Rapa Nui.

      (Captcha: ERR)

  6. no leftie 6

    If the debate over global warming really is over, why mention that?

    It’s almost as if people need reminding their thinking has already been done for them – “nothing to see here, move along”.

    • So Bored 6.1

      The reason for he statement is the same reason the right uses little shibboleths like “there is no alternative”, “productivity must be increased”, “growth is necessary”. Nobody innocent so far.

      You are right to question this type of statement, dont expect however to find the answers to your liking. For example, I thoroughly checked out the lastest climate change science, and the picture is far bleaker than portrayed here.

  7. no leftie 7

    “Far bleaker” than the end of the world!! That must be some pretty horrific reading.

    I suspect the “debate is over” tactic is failing. Why else do believers have to keep saying it. The idea of global warming must be maintained as a truth. Once it slips back to being just someone’s opinion again – or (gulp) the crackpot rantings of a nutcase – the final whistle really will be blown on the debate.

    • NickS 7.1

      Hey, the debate’s over on HIV causing AIDS too, but it’s hasn’t stopped the nuts, and we still defend it as the “truth”/”the debate is over” frame…

      Then again, on the basis of you above post, you’re probably in the denialist camp.
      /sigh

      Care then to tell us why global warming/climate change is bunk so one, or another poster, may cluebat thee with science?

  8. bobbity 8

    No the climate change debate is not over as demonstrated on this litlle blog in a small country in the antipodes.

    Combating rising temperatures and slowing the rate that ice and snow are melting requires fast responses. One near-term solution is to focus on black carbon, or soot, an aerosol that scientists assert may be the second largest contributor to climate change after CO2 and that has an enhanced impact on snow and ice melt. Black carbon is emitted from incomplete combustion of burning fossil fuels and biomass, and contributes to climate change in two ways: while in the atmosphere, the dark particles absorb heat and warm the air; when it falls on ice and snow, it also absorbs more solar radiation,
    leading to more rapid melting, which then leads to less reflective ice, in a dangerous accelerating feedback cycle.

    “Soot may be a contributor to the disappearance of glaciers in some regions and could even explain the accelerated rates of melt in the Himalaya-Hindu-Kush,” . Scientists urge rapid reduction of black carbon emissions to slow warming in the near term and help avoid passing the temperature thresholds for abrupt climate changes. Unlike CO2, where a significant fraction remains in the atmosphere for over a thousand years, black carbon only stays in the atmosphere for a few days to a week. Hence, reducing black carbon emissions has an immediate effect on global warming. Reductions also have major health benefits for millions who currently live in heavily polluted areas and risk disease and death from breathing polluted air.”

    “In contrast to reductions in black carbon soot, cuts in CO2 emissions, while essential, do not produce significant cooling for at least a thousand years,”

    We should also not forget that we could reduce our emissions to nil and it would have little if any measurable effect on the local or world climate – surely this is one area where we must ride on the coat tails of the larger countries.

  9. Nick 9

    The cost of doing nothing in New Zealand is nothing. We don’t produce emissions anywhere near the level required to reduce them. We could reduce by 80% and it wouldn’t affect the climate one iota.

    • Draco T Bastard 9.1

      Delusion, pure and total delusion.

      It’s amazing the lengths people will go to to prevent having to admit that their actions are wrong.

  10. no leftie 10

    Denialist – Believer, I guess it helps to label people.

    But the real difference I see on my side of the fence is that I’m happy for you to believe whatever you want. Cut your CO2 emissions by 40 percent if you want.

    Drive a hybrid – never fly in a plane again – save our dying planet.

    Do what ever spins your wheels, just don’t presume to tell me what to do.

    • Draco T Bastard 10.1

      You see, this is the type of attitude that increases crime and dysfunction in a society. People actually believing that they can do WTF they want and no one can tell them not to.

      Well, no clue, you can’t. When you take action that negatively affects others they have the right to veto that action. Don’t like it? Tough.

      • no leftie 10.1.1

        Abuse of those who don’t believe is hardly a winning way to talk them around.

        Worse still it just makes you look like a petulant child.

        Knock yourself out telling us all how to live our lives – people will do what they want to do, they always have – and the noise from presumptuous scare-mongers will fade to a distant hum in the background.

  11. National are yet to unveil their secret: during talks at Copenhagen, an SEP field will be activated during NZ’s turn to negotiate their target. Nick Smith has been trialling its use in Cabinet during discussions of a suitable emissions target, and it’s been working very well.

  12. no leftie 12

    Oh and believers check out what these guys have to say…they might just know what they’re talking about.

    http://striky.ece.jhu.edu/~sasha/Public/APS.open.letter.09.pdf

    • Andrei 12.1

      You are pissing in the wind – you are dealing fundamentalists here who will no doubt tell you that these guys are

      (a) In the pay of the evil oil companies

      (b) Physics is not climate science so they have no expertise in the subject

      Alas every age has to deal with its closed minded rabble with irrational belief systems and these the end is nigh people are the cross we have to bear.

      At least they are not burning Jews for causing earthquakes like their equivalents did in 18th century Lisbon

      • NickS 12.1.1

        a) Firstly, back during the 80’s and 90’s the Tobacco industry sponsored numerous sceptical scientists to “disprove” the tobacco-cancer link. The current funding of “sceptical” groups by various companies and individuals concerning climate change bears strong parallels to this historical situation… But, if one also looks at the arguments of these sceptical groups, it’s not hard to pick up major flaws in their arguments, such as cherry picking the literature, typically older papers, and data sets, or flawed inductions, such as arguments from ignorance. Then there’s nit-picking at methodologies used, which while it can point out some flaws, historically, the claims made by sceptical groups/individuals often are invalid, or cause non-statistically significant changes to predictions and/or results.

        b) Right, because it’s not as if there’s no physicists working within climate modelling and climatology at all… Oh wait, that’s right, climatology deals a lot with fluid physics in modelling the planet’s climate, along with radiation absorption. Of which, since the climate is a complex system, means they need to make some simplified assumptions, which fit the data gathered about real-world climate. While many of those “sceptical” physicists make elementary modelling errors, by making assumptions which are entirely at odds with what we know about climate, such as assuming the ideal gas law without corrections is useful when looking at climate, or that CO2 doesn’t absorb and emit any photons what so ever, and thus temperature is a function of pressure. Which is clearly wrong even if you have a year 13 knowledge in physics and chemistry.

        Alas every age has to deal with its closed minded rabble with irrational belief systems and these the end is nigh people are the cross we have to bear.

        Aww, it’s soo cute, making accusation of “closed minds” when your clearly making assumptions about climate change on the basis of ideological commitments, rather that bothering to look at what’s in the IPCC reports and associated literature, let alone breakdowns of climate change provided by actual climatologists and associated researchers.

        At least they are not burning Jews for causing earthquakes like their equivalents did in 18th century Lisbon

        I call Godwin’s Law on this.

        • Andrei 12.1.1.1

          This may surprise you but I have read the IPCC reports – The Summary for policy makers written by and for politicians and the Technical summary.

          And my funny friend there are lots of pretty pictures with a great deal of verbosity in both documents with little hard evidence to back them up.

          It may interest you to know that little of the hard science done by real scientists behind the scenes for the IPCC actually makes the report.

          Or that many of those involved in the process have protested the misuse of their work and some have resigned, refusing to be involved in a process that distorts their work.

          For example Chris Landsea’s resignation

          • NickS 12.1.1.1.1

            /facepalm

            The IPCC presents a summary of the currently known information about climate change, along with using this data to predict future impacts. Doing this actually involves a f*ckload of work, since to summarise the science on a given topic not only takes a lot of reading, but also involves putting it altogether to form a cohesive summary and conclusions about the area of interest. On the evidence front, science at the coal-face of an area of research needs to be put in context, and may also contain flaws, meaning of course, that some papers to not make into the IPCC, and on evidence, lolwut?

            The IPCC makes use of all the major data sets for global temperate anomalies, along with sea ice and ice-sheet data sets, and in the process of modelling, also includes all the lovely physics work on climate, atmospheric physics and radiation forcing. So, by all means, please pray tell what “hard evidence” is missing from the IPCC and other related works into looking at climate change? Because I suspect strongly you’re purposely misrepresenting the actual work, much like young earth creationist’s/ID’ists do when ever they talk about evolutionary biology…

            And on Chris Landsea;
            http://mustelid.blogspot.com/2005/01/landsea-contrasts.html
            Which boiling down;
            1) storms are one of the fine detail areas where there is still a lively debate going, in part due to them and related systems like hurricanes being difficult to model in the long-term.
            2) Landsea is only one damn person, by focusing on him, you ignore the bigger picture of climate change. It’s a bit like citing Michael Behe as a significant dissenter from evolution, while ignoring that the vast majority other life-scientists and those in related fields, accept evolution.

            And good one on the Gish Gallop there, instead of actually talking about the points I raised in the previous post.

  13. Nick 13

    When you take action that negatively affects others they have the right to veto that action. Don’t like it? Tough.

    This fails at the first hurdle as no action in New Zealand through Co2 emission reductions affects anyone cos we don’t produce enough for the world or the climate to worry about. Now if you’re talking India, China, Russia and USA you have a point: they’re all “rich pricks” in the greater scheme of things. Let them pay and let the poor nations such as New Zealand not pay. That’s what you lefties believe in isn’t it? Why should a poor country like NZ that will be very adversely affected by a carbon emissions cap have to pay when we don’t produce any emissions?

    • Pascal's bookie 13.1

      This really is a stupid argument, but just in case you aren’t just being dishonest…

      … the point you haven’t noticed is that we emit less because there are fewer of us. If you took any random (or regional) group of 4ish million Chinese or Indians, do you think their emissions would make a difference? Our per capita emissions are what count, just like for everyone else on the planet.

    • felix 13.2

      While we’re on the topic of fuckwitted shenanigans, when did NZ become a “poor country” and India, China and Russia “rich countries”?

  14. Nick 14

    No you’re wrong PB. The atmosphere doesn’t calculate how much carbon per capita is being emitted, rather it’s the total tonnage that’s supposedly rooting the climate. NZ doesn’t contribute to the total amount. It’s that simple.

    • felix 14.1

      No, you’re that simple.

      By your reasoning (and I use the word reluctantly) no single individual on the planet is responsible for anything they do.

    • Pascal's bookie 14.2

      Nah Felix, dimbulb’s right.

      The way to beat AGW is to break up the world’s nations into states of about 4 million people each. Thus fooling the stupid atmosphere into not noticing the gases, because every nation it looks at won’t be making a difference.

      • Lew 14.2.1

        I reckon we could get the Randroids on side if we broke the world up into states of, say, one person each. Each state would emit zero (to many significant figures) per cent of the total supposed amount of carbon. And as anyone can tell you, it doesn’t matter what BIGNUM you multiply zero by …

        Stupid atmosphere. When’s it just going to realise we were right all along?

        L

  15. Pascal's bookie 15

    Yep. I for one simply can’t believe that the oil/energy interests are being anything but honest. It’s not their fault that they can’t afford to pay scientists the big dollars like NIWA and people of that ilk can! Jeez, it’s so unfair.

    And even after all that, with all those unprincipled scientists selling out their professional integrity so they can live high on the hog on their fat-cat govt salaries, big energy still plays fair and straight. Straight like Jesus.

    Why, they’d never gin up a bunch of fake arse astroturf rallies, fund them, get energy companies to ‘encourage’ their employees to go along, focus group a bunch of ‘spontaneous’ slogans that might accidently be used by folks at these natural outpourings of the people exercising their civic rights. Hell no. They sure as shit wouldn’t be caught planning something like that just today, now, would they now, what the hey?

    The memo — sent by the American Petroleum Institute and obtained by Greenpeace, which sent it to reporters — urges oil companies to recruit their employees for events that will “put a human face on the impacts of unsound energy policy,” and will urge senators to “avoid the mistakes embodied in the House climate bill.”

    whoops. :(

  16. Pascal's bookie 16

    Moderation? was it the *lk?

  17. Galeandra 17

    No Leftie who HATES labelling says: Do what ever spins your wheels, just don’t presume to tell me what to do.

    Might is right, so like it or lump it, we cruddy fundementalists ARE going to tell you what to do, because limiting your trivial freedoms to consume MAY save the rest of the living world from the full costs of your so doing. If we are wrong, the damage you’ve to put up with is lower by several orders of magnitude than the damage being caused by current consumption.

    • no leftie 17.1

      Wow – that’s why incandescent lightbulbs have been banned(oops), farmers face a fart tax(oops again) and a glorious Emissions Trading Scheme is grinding our economy to a halt(not yet).

      Did you miss the election result – the Green-Labour government is no more.

      National will pay lip-service to your religion and no more.

      I have to “like it or lump it”?

      Who’s in denial now?

      • BLiP 17.1.1

        National Inc’s supporters seem to be in denial – unless telling you to stop talking on your cell phone when driving is not Nanny State? Or, maybe its okay now because, really, its actually Daddy State.

        Australia, on the other hand, thinks the light bulb idea is a good one, they are also quite keen on government spending, $42 bilion worth, while The Goober, on the other hand, prefers to break his promises about tax cuts and actually seriously consider tax increases.

        Who’s in denial now?

        • no leftie 17.1.1.1

          Oh touché, parroting back my line to teach me a lesson.

          I bet you’re also a wiz at “I know you are, but what am I”.

          Anyway….back to “we cruddy fundamentalists ARE going to tell you what to do”

          Not sure if I made my point clearly enough. Your lot lost the election. YOU don’t get to tell anyone what to do any more. I understand that’s a toughy to come to terms with but IT’S OVER

          Your job is now to whine loudly.

      • NickS 17.1.2

        @ no leftie

        /facepalm

        The stupid, it burns.

        Look, do you, or do you not, trust the scientific method?

        Because the IPCC report, and associated evidence is all derived via the norms of science, and while science has in the past, present and future been “wrong”, the problem is, is that you need empirically viable alternatives in order to actually see that you need to chuck out the previous theory sets(s), or rework them. With climate change, all the “it’s not our fault” theories have been found empirically lacking, while the theory sets focused on climate change being the result of human associated carbon emissions, primarily in the form of CO2, has been reinforced. As can be seen via a causal read of the literature, the IPCC reports or on the likes of realclimate and multiple scientific associations and the expert opinion of those involved in the field.

        So if climate change is then solid on the science front, per all the associated, published scientific literature, and there are no viable alternatives, then what (rational) basis do you have to reject it, and the associated best case scenario’s published via the IPCC? All of which, points to humanity needing to make serious changes to avoid major disruptions to the stability of numerous developing nations, and significant economic costs to the developed world, and keep the global economy rolling in the long-term. And needs to be acted on n o w instead of 20 years down the track, where the current models indicate such action will not have the needed effects.

        And the whole “religion” thing, is oh soo cute, but also indicates that you can’t think, otherwise you’d know why using the term “religion” is stupid when it comes to science, but are also a hypocrite, per your previous statements about labels. Then again, shouldn’t get my hopes up that any of what I’ve said will sink in, and I’ll merely see another Gish Gallop…

        • no leftie 17.1.2.1

          Like I said whine loudly

          And yes Andrei I know I’m “pissing in the wind” trying to talk sense to this lot but someone has to try. If we all do our bit we can make a difference.

          I’m proposing a 40% reduction in gullibility. I doubt they’ll accept more than 15% but if I can get an actor or two on board that could swing the deal.

          They seem to like it when someone who pretends to be others for a living tells them what to think.

          • NickS 17.1.2.1.1

            Yes, because actually questioning your reasoning is “whining”, as is pointing out the flaws in it.

            So, answer the question;
            “Do you trust the scientific method?”

            If not, please explain why.

            Oh, and ignoring 4/5ths of my post, shear brilliance there.
            /sarcasm

  18. Nick 18

    This is for felix and Pascal’s Bookie (from this morning’s opinion piece in the Herald – link below):

    This doesn’t mean we can go on emitting greenhouse gases indefinitely – the case for us to reverse recent growth in emissions and move to a lower carbon economy is undeniable.

    But as colleagues and I argued in the journal Nature recently, what really matters is the total amount of carbon dioxide released over the next few hundred years, not the details of the timing. The climate doesn’t care exactly when we burn carbon, only how much eventually gets burnt.

    As my colleague Myles Allen put it: “Mother Nature doesn’t care about dates. To avoid dangerous climate change we will have to limit the total amount of carbon we inject into the atmosphere, not just the emission rate in any given year.”

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10591384

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • How many victims missing out on protection?
    Hundreds of domestic abuse victims could be missing out on getting protection orders because they are unable to get legal aid, Labour’s Justice spokesperson Jacinda Ardern says.“In the last two years some 351 people who applied for legal aid for… ...
    2 days ago
  • Government kicks hardworking whanau
    A major incentive to help young Kiwis and people on low incomes to start saving has been kicked out from under them with the National-led Government ramming through short-sighted legislation under Urgency today, Labour’s Maori Development Spokesperson Nanaia Mahuta says.… ...
    2 days ago
  • Speculator tax political stunt gone wrong
    Bill English’s admission he doesn’t know whether National’s new speculator tax will have any effect shows last weekend’s announcement by the Prime Minister was a desperate political stunt, says Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. “This Government is so desperate to… ...
    2 days ago
  • The value of parenting
    This week, as part of the Budget, the government introduced a bill to address child poverty. This bill will require parents receiving income support to look for part-time work once their youngest child is three years of age rather than… ...
    GreensBy Jan Logie MP
    2 days ago
  • Another new tax, another broken promise
    National has unveiled yet another new tax in this budget – a rural broadband levy that will almost certainly result in an immediate price hike for internet and telephone connections across New Zealand, Labour’s ICT spokesperson Clare Curran said “The… ...
    3 days ago
  • Anniversary of Sri Lankan Tamil Massacre
    This is not going to be a happy story but if the Green Party of Aotearoa doesn’t want to know who else will? May 18th marks the anniversary of what is known as the ‘Mullivaikal massacre’ of Tamils in 2009 at… ...
    GreensBy Catherine Delahunty MP
    3 days ago
  • Labour MPs join youth to take part in 40 hour famine
    A team of Labour MPs took part in the 2015 World Vision 40 hour famine and we were told by World Vision and the young people, that it was the first time MPs had joined them and how appreciative they… ...
    3 days ago
  • Rodeo: ‘Family entertainment’ or animal abuse?
    Recently  TVNZ ran a story with confronting footage showing rodeo animals being punched, repeatedly shocked with electronic prods and having their tails violently twisted over their backs. It was clear that significant force was being used behind the scenes to make… ...
    GreensBy Mojo Mathers MP
    3 days ago
  • Budget puts the squeeze on police
    The Government has cut funding to the New Zealand police force in the latest Budget, says Labour’s Police spokesperson Kelvin Davis. “The reduction is a whopping $15.3 million that could put front line officers at risk. ...
    3 days ago
  • Crucial social services take another hit
    The Government looks set to slash half a million dollars of funding for critical social services, including Women’s Refuge and Barnados, says Labour’s Social Development spokesperson Carmel Sepuloni “Taking $500,000 from organisations aimed at improving the lives of vulnerable families… ...
    3 days ago
  • Saying it Loud on Climate in Christchurch
    The Government’s Christchurch consultation meeting on New Zealand’s emission targets was inspiring – not for what was in the Ministry for the Environment’s (MFE’s) defeatist video about the obstacles to changing to a low carbon future, but for what the… ...
    GreensBy Eugenie Sage MP
    3 days ago
  • Budget silent on small business
    The Government has completely ignored one of the most important sectors of the economy – small and medium-sized enterprises – in Budget 2015, Labour’s Small Business spokesperson Jacinda Ardern says. "A stunning 41 per cent of jobs were created by… ...
    3 days ago
  • Thank you John, it’s been bloody marvellous
    The departure of John Campbell is a blow to current affairs investigative journalism, Labour’s Broadcasting Spokesperson Clare Curran says. “Campbell Live stood out in its field. Its axing comes as local broadcasting in New Zealand remains in a state of… ...
    3 days ago
  • KiwiSaver cut shows no long-term plan
    National’s cutting of the KiwiSaver kickstart is incredibly short-term thinking, typical of a Budget that is woefully short on ideas to generate wealth and opportunity, Labour’s Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson says. “New Zealand’s savings rate is far too low. KiwiSaver… ...
    3 days ago
  • National hits the panic button for its 7th Budget
    National has hit the panic button for its 7th Budget in a desperate attempt to look like they’re taking action to reduce our shameful child poverty rates, but they are giving with one hand and taking with the other, Opposition… ...
    4 days ago
  • Panic and back-flips can’t hide twin deficits
    National’s token measures to fight fires they have left burning for seven long years can’t hide a Budget that is long on broken promises, short on vision and fails to reach surplus, says Labour’s Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson. “After being… ...
    4 days ago
  • Auckland land measure seven years too late
    National are so desperate to look like they are doing something about the Auckland housing crisis they have dusted off Labour’s 2008 inventory of government land available for housing and re-announced it, says Labour’s housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. “Despite National… ...
    4 days ago
  • Access to gender reassignment surgery essential
    I was frankly disgusted to hear the Minister for Health say that funding gender reassignment surgeries is a “nutty idea”. A recent study found that in New Zealand 1% of young people identified themselves as transgender, and 3% were unsure… ...
    GreensBy Jan Logie MP
    5 days ago
  • Global milk prices now lowest in 6 years
    The latest fall in the global dairy price has brought it to the lowest level in six years and shows there must be meaningful action in tomorrow’s Budget to diversify the economy, says Labour’s Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson. “Dairy prices… ...
    5 days ago
  • Big risks as CYF checks stopped
    Revelations that Child, Youth and Family is no longer assisting home-based early childhood educators by vetting potential employees should set alarm bells ringing, Labour Children’s spokesperson Jacinda Ardern says. “Doing away with an extra mechanism for checking potential new employees… ...
    6 days ago
  • Housing crisis about real people not numbers
    The Government’s continued failure to tackle the housing crisis is seeing thousands of vulnerable Kiwis being kept off social housing waiting lists, while others, who are on the list, are being forced to live in cars and garages, says Labour’s… ...
    6 days ago
  • Housing crisis about real people not numbers
    The Government’s continued failure to tackle the housing crisis is seeing thousands of vulnerable Kiwis being kept off social housing waiting lists, while others, who are on the list, are being forced to live in cars and garages, says Labour’s… ...
    6 days ago
  • State of origin
    Kiwis are increasingly concerned about the food they give their families. New Zealand consumers have the right to know where their food has come from, particularly when it involves animals, and should be able to expect our Government to label… ...
    GreensBy Steffan Browning MP
    6 days ago
  • Relationships Aotearoa
    It is disturbing that Relationships Aotearoa, a voluntary organisation set up in 1949 to help couples struggling with their relationships following the upheavals of World War II, may be forced to close, says Acting Spokesperson for the Voluntary and Community… ...
    6 days ago
  • An economy that is just working for some is an economy that is not working
    The National Party presents itself as a great manager of the economy, but if the economy is only working for some we really need to question that assertion. Alongside the perpetually elusive surplus, the levels of risk in our economy are… ...
    GreensBy Jan Logie MP
    6 days ago
  • An economy that is just working for some is an economy that is not working
    The National Party presents itself as a great manager of the economy, but if the economy is only working for some we really need to question that assertion. Alongside the perpetually elusive surplus, the levels of risk in our economy are… ...
    GreensBy Jan Logie MP
    6 days ago
  • House prices to a crack $1 million in 17 months
    The average Auckland home is on track to cost $1 million in 17 months’ time if nothing substantial is done to rein in soaring price rises, Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford says. “Auckland’s house prices have skyrocketed 63 per cent… ...
    6 days ago
  • Vital support services can’t be left in lurch
    The National Government has big questions to answer about how a provider of services to thousands of vulnerable New Zealanders is set to fold, Labour’s Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson says. Relationships Aotearoa which provides support and counselling to families, individuals… ...
    7 days ago
  • Treasury and IRD on a capital gains tax
    Both the Treasury and IRD have been advising the National Government on the benefits of a capital gains tax. Documents released to the Green Party under an Official Information Act request show that John Key has been selective with the… ...
    GreensBy Russel Norman MP
    7 days ago
  • Charity legislation needs review
    It is unacceptable that the big corporate based charities claim  millions in annual income tax exemptions, while small community based and operated non-profit organisations  struggle to gain official charity status, Labour’s acting spokesperson for the Voluntary and Community Sector Louisa… ...
    7 days ago
  • John’s panic-Key response to housing crisis
    John Key needs to tell New Zealanders what caused his sudden change of heart that led to the Government’s scrambled and last-minute housing measures, Opposition Leader Andrew Little says. “The Prime Minister’s sudden rush of blood to his head followed… ...
    7 days ago
  • Keep our Assets Christchurch Campaign: An update
    I recently presented my submission to keep Christchurch Council assets at the Christchurch City Council’s public hearings on its 10 year plan on 13 May. The hearings are live-streamed and recorded so you can watch them on www.ccc.govt.nz. The Council’s… ...
    GreensBy Eugenie Sage MP
    7 days ago
  • John Key finally admits there’s a housing crisis
    John Key’s weak measures to rein in the astronomical profits property speculators are making are an admission – finally – that there is a housing crisis, Labour Leader Andrew Little says. “But yet again National is tinkering with the housing… ...
    1 week ago
  • Government stifles voices in CYFs review
    The Government’s exclusion of the Māori Women’s Welfare League in a panel on the future of CYFs is a cynical ploy to stifle views, says Labour’s Māori Development Spokesperson Nanaia Mahuta. “It's unbelievable that a significant review on the future… ...
    1 week ago
  • Speech to the Otago Chamber of Commerce
    Thank you very much for the opportunity to be here today. It’s a pleasure as always to be back in the town that raised me. Growing up in St Kilda meant that there was one thing that was a big… ...
    1 week ago
  • Key can’t just be Prime Minister for Parnell
    John Key must show New Zealanders in next week’s Budget that he is more than the Prime Minister for Parnell, and is also the Prime Minister for Pine Hill, Putararu and Palmerston North, Labour’s Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson says. In… ...
    1 week ago
  • Stop the conversions
    This week, some Waikato locals took me and intrepid photographer Amanda Rogers on a tour of some  lakes and waterways in their region, and up to the massive dairy conversions in the upper catchment of the Waikato River. It… ...
    GreensBy Catherine Delahunty MP
    1 week ago
  • More regional jobs go in Corrections reshape
    News that 194 Corrections staff are to lose their jobs will have ramifications not only for them and their families but for the wider community, Labour’s Corrections spokesperson Kelvin Davis says. Prison units at Waikeria, Tongariro and Rimutaka face closure… ...
    1 week ago
  • Government’s climate meetings off to a bumpy start
    On Wednesday, I attended a hui and an evening meeting that the Government had organised in Nelson as part of its climate change consultation tour, to support the Nelson community telling the Government to take meaningful action on climate change.… ...
    GreensBy Steffan Browning MP
    2 weeks ago
  • Taxpayers the only ones left feeling blue
    Ministry of Social Development bosses could have saved themselves thousands of dollars in consultants’ fees by providing staff with rose-tinted spectacles, Labour’s State Services spokesperson Kris Faafoi says. A report out today reveals the Ministry is spending over half a… ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Why are the regions still facing restrictions?
    Labour's Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford is questioning why the regions should continue to be saddled with LVR lending restrictions announced by the Reserve Bank today. “Labour has been calling for the regions to be exempted from LVRs for the best… ...
    2 weeks ago
  • The high costs of weak environmental regulation
    Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere is described on the Department of Conservation website as “Canterbury’s largest and New Zealand’s fifth largest [lake], and an internationally important wildlife area.” But the lake is also polluted by nutrients leaching from farms in the catchment.… ...
    GreensBy Eugenie Sage MP
    2 weeks ago
  • Submissions to Wellington City Council on their Gambling Venues Policy
    Every three years Councils across the country are required to check that their gambling venue policies are still fit for purpose and they can choose to consult on their policy if they are thinking of making changes. Councils don’t have… ...
    GreensBy Denise Roche MP
    2 weeks ago
  • Reserve Bank action shows Govt out of touch and out of ideas
    The Reserve Bank’s unprecedented measures today show it understands the serious risks of the overheating housing market – in complete contrast to John Key’s refusal to acknowledge the crisis, Labour’s Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson says. “The Bank is right to… ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Send us your snaps: 25 Years of the Green Party
    This year we've hit a milestone. We're turning 25.To help celebrate a quarter of a century, please send us your photos from the last 25 years of the Green Party Aotearoa New Zealand! Note: Photos must be jpg, gif or… ...
    2 weeks ago
  • 25 Years of the Green Party
    This year the Green Party sends 25. To help us celebrate a quarter of a century please send us you photos of 25 years of the Green Party!Photos must be jpg,gif or png and smaller than 2MB. If you are… ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Bay growth plan too little too late
    Today’s Bay of Plenty growth study from MBIE is another example of Government spin - lots of talk but little action, says Labour’s Regional Development spokesperson David Cunliffe.  “This is a region that desperately needs to develop the downstream processing… ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Government bows to ACC pressure
     The Government has finally buckled to pressure from Labour and the New Zealand public in making a half billion dollar cut to ACC levies, but the full benefits are two years away,” says Opposition Leader Andrew Little.  “$500 million over… ...
    2 weeks ago
  • False figures cloud Auckland transport facts
    The Prime Minister should apologise and issue a correction after both he and Transport Minister Simon Bridges have been caught out misrepresenting facts on Auckland’s transport spending, Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford says. "Both John Key and Simon Bridges have… ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Govt books confirm National can’t post surplus
    The last publication of the Government’s books before the budget shows National will break its promise of seven years and two election campaigns and fail to get the books in order, says Labour’s Finance Spokesperson Grant Robertson. “The Government is… ...
    2 weeks ago

Public service advertisements by The Standard

Current CO2 level in the atmosphere