40 by 2020

11 comments on “40 by 2020 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. gingercrush 1

   6 July 2009 at 4:33 pm

   And exactly how is New Zealand expected to cut 40% of current emissions by 2020 which is in less than 11 years. And why are we the only country that has to include agriculture emissions as something to cut back on?
   • lprent 1.1

     6 July 2009 at 4:59 pm

     There are few countries where agricultural emissions make up as high a proportion of greenhouse gases as NZ. The idea is to reduce emissions for each country in similar proportions. In NZ that means agriculture. In the US aand UK it means industrial.

     Stop whining. At least our farmers are keen to rapidly pick up on technology that saves them money, and they aren’t massively constrained by previous capital investment. So all we have to do is invent it. That should be easy with the impetus of the Fast Forward Fund……

     Ummm I think someone cut it – I wonder who the fool was?
2. vto 2

   6 July 2009 at 4:53 pm

   Holy guacamole! 40% in ten years!

   Perhaps someone (the author?) could outline briefly and broadly how this would be even remotely achievable?

   It is all well and good aiming for the stars but when your feet are unable to leave the ground (except by burning carbon fuels) it is actually a waste of time even talking about something so unrealistic..

   But I’m all ears as to how this remoteness may be brought to closeness..
3. gingercrush 3

   6 July 2009 at 5:08 pm

   That is bullshit. Just because Agriculture in the US isn’t a high carbon emitter in proportion for the rest of its economy doesn’t mean their agriculture isn’t substantial. Undoubtedly, their carbon emissions from Agriculture are likely greater than what New Zealand’s is. The same is undoubtedly true for Europe. Yet they don’t have to make any cuts in emissions for Agriculture. In which case these pathetic targets have nothing to do with saving the planet. Of course that is the argument you and others keep having. To cut emissions will save this planet. But if countries pick and choose what they have to cut (which is effectively what Europe has done). It actually does nothing to address the issue of carbon emissions.

   Secondly does planting trees or other things that bank carbon cut emissions or are able to be used in the calculations to cut emissions?
   • lprent 3.1

     6 July 2009 at 7:29 pm

     The critical word is ‘proportion’. If transport and industry make up the bulk of a nations emissions, then those are the ones that should be targeted first (not last). The job of reducing those is likely to require the most research and effort to bring down.

     Of course most politicians would tend to work by estimating political damage. In NZ’s case by ignoring most of the emissions
4. jarbury 4

   6 July 2009 at 5:34 pm

   Aren’t our fastest growing emissions from transport? I know… let’s embark on a transport policy that focuses on being more sustainable and less reliant upon private cars.

   Oh, crap that’s right we ended up with Steven Joyce as our Transport Minister. Looks like we’re spending $27 on new state highways for every dollar in new public transport infrastructure now (no I am not joking, that is the ratio in the NLTF).

   anti-spam word: rubbish. damn straight those transport policies are!
5. Bill 5

   6 July 2009 at 6:29 pm

   Scotland has set itself the world’s most ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets after the Scottish parliament voted today to cut the nation’sCO2 emissions by 42% by 2020.

   In a rare show of unity, all political parties at Holyrood unanimously agreed to fix the target as part of a radical climate change bill which also requires the Scottish government to set legally binding annual cuts in emissions from 2012.

   And 80 per cent by 2050

   Go NZ. So clean and green and…..full of b/s. ( or should that be dairy cow shit? Ask a politician)
6. George Darroch 6

   6 July 2009 at 6:56 pm

   Does anyone know which MPs have signed up to this?

   Perhaps lobbying a few of the more likely ones is a good idea.
7. Bill 7

   6 July 2009 at 7:12 pm

   Just watched the video. Very ‘mash-potato smaltch’. I’ve got a basic problem with this type of campaign. And this is what it is.

   Have a voice. Go to a public meeting and speak out. But remember. Be civilised. Be very civilised and don’t actually think for even the briefest of seconds that you have any legitimate agency or course of action beyond going to a civilised public meeting and speaking out in a civilised fashion.

   This planet is my planet. It belongs to me. Not just me, but it is most assuredly mine.

   Now if I, either alone or in conjunction with others, offer a serious threat to profit then….oh yeah, we get arrested, imprisoned, deported and, not uncommonly, removed from existence altogether. (Just look at the history of class war if you are deluded enough to think otherwise.)

   Meanwhile, there is a serious threat to my planet’s climate. And I am utterly dependent upon climate and a plethora of ecosystems that are also utterly dependent on climate.

   So lets go to a public meeting and politely, civilly tell the disciples of profit and their lackeys ( BTW that’s the people who sanction the murder of individuals who inconveniently obstruct their garnering of profit) that we would really rather prefer that they played nice, were decent chappies and stopped focussing all their energies on profit?

   Whatever.
8. Pascal's bookie 8

   7 July 2009 at 8:56 am

   Good to see ACT is treating the Emissions Trading Scheme review committee with their customary seriousness.

   http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2009/07/climate-change-bad-faith-from-act.html

   Lazy? Arrogant? Wasteful?

   All of the above?
9. Macro 9

   7 July 2009 at 8:04 pm

   If only this government would take the necessity to cut carbon emissions as seriously as they take cuts to welfare, education, and health we could have 10% reductions this year!

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS