A Tale of Two Protests

Written By: - Date published: 4:09 pm, September 8th, 2018 - 79 comments
Categories: activism, global warming, International, Politics, the praiseworthy and the pitiful - Tags: , ,

At about a quarter to one this afternoon, I swung around the corner at the Exchange and noticed quite a reasonable number of people ‘across the way’. By their obvious signage, they were protesting the use of 1080. I’d guess there was something like 30 people there.

A few minutes later, on the way through the Octagon, I stopped to chat with a few people who’d gathered as part of the global day of action called “Rise for Climate”, and I picked up some leaflets. When I first passed through, it was before their advertised “start” time and there was a very light smattering of something like a dozen people.

Fast forward one hour.

Coming back through the Octagon, I’d say there was maybe twenty people. All white and all exuding a definate air of middle classness There was an electric car and some electric bikes and, to be honest, I immediately thought of a stall at a sales expo.

The bus driver (I was on a bus at this point) didn’t “toot” in support, and I didn’t hear any passing cars tooting support either

Down by The Exchange, there was maybe something like 40 or 50 people and…well, the only demographic that seemed to be missing was the white middle class. The bus driver tooted support. And as the bus sat at the next set of lights, I could hear further toots of support from passing motorists off behind us.

So what might it tell us, when a gathering about the future viability of how we live attracts a smattering of people from a single demographic, and a gathering about the use of a poison seemingly attracts every demographic but, and (maybe) two or three times as many people?

I don’t think the people protesting 1080 would be antagonistic to messages on global warming. And there is an obvious enough cross-over, because the things those people at the 1080 protest are seeking to protect get clattered by global warming.

I don’t know what, if any, information was available from the 1080 gathering. (I was on a bus both times I passed the Exchange.) But I do know what their message was. As do you.

Anyway, I’ve just this minute read the leaflets I gathered from the Octagon. There’s some good information within the half a dozen or so leaflets I grabbed. But some of the information is also, quite frankly, incredibly unhelpful, while a lot of it is decidedly naive. Overall, there’s too much confusing or irrelevant smash, and no timeless and simple “banner message” that might offer unity and a basis for people to built on.

Just to be clear. I’m not suggesting that everyone ought to be saying the same damned things about global warming or climate change, or that everyone ought to cleave to the same set of priorities.

But there has to be something short and sharp, something unequivocal and easy to grasp that allows people “entry”.

Until then, I suspect actions around global warming will remain somewhat “soft” – places and events where people already familiar with one another can gather to say hello – and the prospects for growing a large and broad based constituency of people, willing to stand up and proclaim that they give a shit –  well, that will remain decidedly low.

79 comments on “A Tale of Two Protests ”

  • Comments are now closed

    • Bill 1.1
      8 September 2018 at 4:49 pm

      The post isn’t about “rights” and “wrongs”, but about effectiveness.

      • Ed 1.1.1
        8 September 2018 at 4:51 pm

        I know.
        I was trying to find more about each.
        Climate protest will only be more effective if it is a lot more radical.

  3. Ad 3
    8 September 2018 at 4:46 pm

    This relates well to the post complaining about Leighton Smith.

    Climate Change as an issue in NZ is at risk of going the way of the GE, Kermadec Reserve, microplastics, plastic bag, and other environmental protest issues: they’ve peaked and no one is leading them.

    MSM media abhor a vacuum – which is annoying when there’s a specific Minister responsible for climate change. Maybe we just have to wait until his bill lands.

      • Chuck 3.1.1
        8 September 2018 at 5:41 pm

        “The Greens need to be a lot more militant on the subject.”

        They can’t Ed… they are now in Government and have to be seen to be at least semi-responsible.

      • Dennis Frank 3.1.2
        8 September 2018 at 7:34 pm

        I agree with this thinking. I’ve always been at the radical leading edge conceptually and often find the GP too mainstream. But to be successful in politics, one must compromise. To find common ground with others, one must put personal priorities to one side. To extend consensus, one must be able to see where the overlap lies in the comprehension of others.

        I don’t like the fact that a site with such good content is anonymous. People must have the courage of their convictions to be successful politically. Paranoia has no constructive effect. The site could be an SIS false-flag operation designed to suck in naive angry youngsters.

    • Bill 3.2
      8 September 2018 at 4:57 pm

      To be honest, I don’t think it’s a matter of “leadership”, but a case of messaging.

      There’s a list of 11 groups listed in one of the leaflets I picked up, and I know for a fact that some of those groups – well intentioned though they are – are advocating or fighting for measures that would have us sail well through 2 degrees and beyond.

      If there was some “catch-all” phrase or slogan that every argued case could easily be measured against, then the chaff could be gotten rid of and progress could begin.

      edit – I’d argue that unless something dovetails with yearly reductions in fossil of about 10%, then it’s smash, or red herring. (Shaw’s proposals – as he has expressed them – are both 👿 )

      • Ad 3.2.1
        8 September 2018 at 5:20 pm

        It’s quite possible to disagree with Shaw and still agree that there’s still only one entity capable of leading a nationwide debate on climate change: the government.

        They have the capacity to demand the media time on tv and radio, the resources to roll out any kind of comms and engagement you like, and the ability to harness all relevant NGOs to one cause.

        I went on the big march before he Paris agreement was signed. It felt great, but it was the peak of climate change media coverage here. That’s the leadership bit that isn’t being connected to the messaging bit.

  4. gsays 4
    8 September 2018 at 5:06 pm

    Perhaps folk see climate change is an issue that is beyond our influence.

    1080, however, it is possible to stop this barbaric practice.

    • Bill 4.1
      8 September 2018 at 5:11 pm

      How can something that’s entirely down to our influence, be beyond our influence?

      I can see why people would feel hopeless, but then, give us the measure that everything must satisfy and that we can gather beneath, and that changes.

      • Ed 4.1.1
        8 September 2018 at 5:22 pm

        Because it’s always pitched at ‘what you can do individually?’
        Just an idea.

      • gsays 4.1.2
        8 September 2018 at 9:14 pm

        @Bill 4.1
        Ok fair enough.

        Maybe control would have been word than influence.

        What you have written above seems to point at leadership, and while we are wedded to neo-liberal, budget restraint, don’t scare the horses, steady as we go, let’s get re-elected…. we are stuffed.

    • Incognito 4.2
      8 September 2018 at 5:12 pm

      Succinct!

    • sumsuch 4.3
      9 September 2018 at 1:05 am

      Read the evidence. Which is the thing between us and the Right — and why the born again Christians don’t like us — and between us and disaster. Reason and demo-cracy go hand in hand.

  5. Incognito 5
    8 September 2018 at 5:10 pm

    This is just a thought but when you want to rage against the machine, so to speak, it helps to have a clear identifiable & tangible target such as 1080. Climate Change is much more nebulous; it is so evasive, so overwhelming, that people simply shut down feeling powerless. The powers that be have much invested, and everything to lose, in maintaining these feelings of powerlessness and they actively try & prevent people from realising their collective power and using it …

    • Bill 5.1
      8 September 2018 at 5:19 pm

      I agree with your thought, but…(and then I’m going to leave this thread before I turn comments into a blue rash of memememe)….

      there is a carbon budget. It is known. There are emission totals and their rates. These are known via retrospective measurement. From that, we know the necessary reduction rate in fossil that would keep us in budget. (It varies a bit from country to country, but is about 10% per annum.) And the reduction must be ongoing down to zero – where zero is not “net zero”, but none, nada, zilch).

      There’s the target. (zero) There’s the ‘agent’ (carbon emitting sources of energy). Put those two things together and get on with it.

      • marty mars 5.1.1
        8 September 2018 at 7:37 pm

        Bill – most people imo are not interested 8n the numbers etc you love and quote. They don’t care, don’t understand and don’t care. Anti 1080 is emotive and drags a wide variety in. It is a classic for these times because the whole debate is emotive yet argued apparently rationally. Trump style. Lies bullshit and agendas. Now climate change has all that but until it gets worse it won’t be handleable for people- too big, too hard.

        A pithy slogan – big mirrors everywhere saying – it’s YOUR problem!

        • gsays 5.1.1.1
          8 September 2018 at 9:08 pm

          So in your eyes, to be against a poison that kills in a painful, slow, inhumane way, is just emotive.

          It also kills indiscriminately, anything that invests it – dogs, horses, koura….

          Please enlighten me, where negative I lied and what agenda do you think I am pushing?

          • marty mars 5.1.1.1.1
            8 September 2018 at 9:46 pm

            Everyone including doc is against poison – it’s just the best we have at the moment. Come up with a better idea and everyone will do it.

          • mauī 5.1.1.1.2
            8 September 2018 at 11:11 pm

            gsays I saw the protest on the news tonight. The demographic there appeared to be a lot of men, in outdoors gear, sunglasses. A little bit rough if that’s not too harsh? Now is this the sort of crowd who are so passionate about animal cruelty that you would see them volunteering at the local SPCA. Somehow I doubt it, they are outdoorsmen, they have skin in the game. Possibly possum skin, you know?… You might find that killing possums for skins can be equally as barbaric. Go check out the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report on 1080. There you’ll see trapping live possums is put on par with poisoning them in terms of animal welfare.

          • mauī 5.1.1.1.3
            8 September 2018 at 11:18 pm

            It also kills indiscriminately, anything that invests it – dogs, horses, koura….

            That is misleading, strict conditions are put on it’s use. I would doubt any of those non-target animals get caught up in a successfully run operation. Those animals are most at risk by people ignoring signs and warnings.

            • gsays 5.1.1.1.3.1
              9 September 2018 at 7:53 am

              Hmm.. I have seen footage of koura fighting over a bait. Perhaps they hadn’t read the signs.

              All of which is immaterial, the way 1080 kills is painful and slow.
              I am not a vegan, I am not a trapper, just someone who isn’t swayed by possums = evil, native is good. I have watched morepork kill young fantail in the nest.

              But we are digressing from the point of the post.

              • left_forward …
                10 September 2018 at 7:54 am

                Very selective concerns gsays.. you’re seemingly content to eat cows, sheep, pigs, ducks, lambs, and chickens (slaughtered by the hundreds of billions worldwide each year), but very concerned about a horse or dog or even koura that might occasionally succomb to 1080.

                Of course nobody is saying opossums are evil either, they are just destroying the habitat for native flora and fauna (just as humans are !).
                And yes preserving native habitat is indeed a ‘good’ that is worthy of protection.

                • gsays …
                  10 September 2018 at 9:04 am

                  Akin to the vibe in this thread, I have virtually no influence over foreign farming practices.
                  You will need to brush up on your mind reading abilities as I do not eat much pork nor chicken, basically because of the cruelty (Also the flavour of poultry has diminished in the last two decades).
                  Cough.. steroids, hormones..Cough cough.

                  1080 use in Aotearoa is something that I have a bit more sway on. Funnily enough, there aren’t many other countries that do use it…?

                  It is the cruel, painful and unnecessary death that makes me oppose its indiscriminate use.

                  • KJT …
                    10 September 2018 at 9:26 am

                    You prefer the cruel, painful and unnecessary death of native chicks, by wild cats, dogs, possums, stoats etc?

                    • gsays …
                      10 September 2018 at 11:13 am

                      You prefer the cruel, painful and unnecessary death of native chicks, by wild cats, dogs, possums, stoats etc?

                      To death by 1080, yes.

                    • gsays …
                      10 September 2018 at 12:02 pm

                      This is not a tina situation.
                      Put a bounty of $10.

                      Pet food, although a memory is stirring that a viable export opossum pet food business ceased because of the threat of 1080.

                      Part of that regional lolly scramble can go into job schemes taking youth off the concrete into the Bush.

                      I am aware I have only mentioned opossum, but with more feet on the ground the trapping of rats, mustelids and cats becomes more viable.

                    • KJT …
                      10 September 2018 at 12:46 pm

                      1080 allows those chicks to reach adulthood.

        • Bill 5.1.1.2
          8 September 2018 at 10:31 pm

          I don’t ‘love’ the numbers marty. They are what they are. And sure, numbers are maybe a bit too clinical or whatever, but they offer the basic understanding, give politicians and policy makers no wriggle room, and can, or need to be translated into some “pithy slogan” or what not that packs emotional punch most people will relate and react to.

      • Incognito 5.1.2
        8 September 2018 at 9:48 pm

        Ok then, let’s go with this. The problem is, as I see it, that it is way too big and runs the risk of becoming an empty slogan. In my view, to be (more) effective, it needs to be broken down in smaller achievable targets. People are more inclined to come on board if they can see the task(s) ahead as ‘manageable’. Same applies to politicians: if the required policies can be made more ‘palatable’ to the electorate and not lead to immediate political ‘suicide’. This does not mean that policies become ‘watered down’ or that this should be done by stealth but rather the opposite; they need to be open about it and build trust, much more trust, and this will lead to more meaningful engagement with the public – after all, it’s the public, not the 120 MPs, who will have to make the necessary changes in behaviour and lifestyle. If politicians fail to build this deeper relationships founded on trust they risk further alienation, frustration, and dismissal and we’ll all boil like the proverbial frogs in the pan with hot water.

        • Bill 5.1.2.1
          8 September 2018 at 10:10 pm

          There’s no way around the physics of it.

          If marty’s right in claiming numbers turn people off then…. what? “Cut or Bust”? Whatever – something simple, real and all encompassing – but not “smaller achievable targets” because there are none. 10% reductions are the very least we can maybe get away with. Obviously, there’s no guarantee we get away with that level of action.

          But at some point (if there’s to be one arrived at) then we have to get our heads around the fact that we, and everything we do, is going to have to adapt to the changes we make before the reality of physics.

          If we choose to adapt to the climatic effects that will follow from not taking affirmative action instead, then we’re stuffed. As far as much of the world goes, we’re just not biologically capable of adapting to the warming that’s just a little way off.

          And if pollies are running to “comfort illusions” because they think acknowledging reality will lose them elections (do we really think they’re “in the know” and/or “on the ball” btw?), then they need to up their fucking game or fuck the fuck off.

          Otherwise…

          • Incognito 5.1.2.1.1
            8 September 2018 at 10:53 pm

            People don’t give a toss about the physics of CC because they don’t understand it; it is more complex & complicated than Einstein’s theories, for example (way too ‘esoteric’ and only for real experts). They’ll ‘understand’ things they can see with their own eyes, not abstract models & extrapolations. That’s not to say that people are stupid but rather that the message should be kept simple (basic) and, most of all, honest.

            Of course, there are “smaller achievable targets”! CC is not the result of one big human activity; it’s the result of many smaller processes that, over time, culminate into CC that is a global disaster in the making. Thus, to tackle CC, it needs to be addressed at each of those smaller contributions; death by a thousand cuts can only be averted by preventing those thousand cuts – there is no single ‘killer blow’. Maybe we’re talking different things here?

            Yes, pollies need to up their game but the electorate does too by allowing them do so. In fact, the voters need to give the pollies the mandate to make the necessary changes. But, and this is a very big “but”, it must be a two-way thing; we cannot blame or accuse the pollies of failing at their duty if we chop their heads off at the first attempt to even put CC on the table let alone when they propose some real changes to counter CC.

            Ideally, arguments to combat CC are not singular but serve more than one purpose. That is, there are more benefits than just (!) CC. People are sensitive to such arguments and their merit …

            • Bill 5.1.2.1.1.1
              8 September 2018 at 11:16 pm

              Most of AGW is the result of burning fossil fuels. Lesser contributions (from agricultural practices for example) are themselves, largely only possible because of fossil fuel use.

              If we don’t cut emissions from sources of energy (ie – primarily cut fossil use) by 10% every year from now until we get to zero, then two degrees becomes an impossibility. That’s the reality. And that’s the smallest available target – every year, another reduction of 10%.

              • Incognito …
                10 September 2018 at 1:23 pm

                Ok, you talk about overall target, the required outcome. I meant the specific steps that need to be (or could be) taken in order to achieve that overall target. We’re slowly inching to actionable changes on a daily timeframe and a house-hold (or individual) kind of level. Some of these will be enacted ‘spontaneously’ (i.e. voluntarily) and some will have to be imposed by our Lawmakers (politicians); this will require much more engagement from both the public and politicians with each other.

            • KJT 5.1.2.1.1.2
              10 September 2018 at 9:37 am

              AGW is incredibly simple.

              Claiming it is difficult to understand is a cop out.

              The earth has a temperature suitable for life, because the atmosphere retains just enough of the suns heat. Gases humans are introducing, with their energy and food production, are changing this balance. Made worse by removing forests, which absorb those gases.

              Climate change is the result of putting more heat into the earths weather systems.

              The more energy you put into a system, the faster moving and more chaotic, it becomes.

              The solution is obvious. A steady state, sustainable use of energy is required.
              Unfortunately. Our economic system is dependent on continuous growth, which requires continual increases in consumption.

              • Incognito …
                10 September 2018 at 1:03 pm

                AGW is incredibly simple.

                I don’t want to be splitting hairs but I said that the “physics of CC” is enormously complex.

                To argue the opposite is disingenuous.

                Your comment explained nothing; it was a simplistic narrative, not a scientific explanation of cause and effect. It did not refer the Laws of Physics and how these underpin CC in a rational and unbiased way.

                I’m giving you a hard time because this what CC deniers do: they claim that CC is just (!) a narrative with no objective basis that can be verified irrespective of one’s background or cultural grounding (AKA ‘conditioning’; the usual postmodern blabla). To counter such argument you must come up with a strong(er) counter-argument, not just more narrative.

                The solution is obvious. A steady state, sustainable use of energy is required.

                I have no idea what you mean by this. Are you saying that all use of energy contributes to CC? What makes it sustainable or unsustainable? Do we have to curb our use of energy or transfer/transform to other forms of energy in terms of production & use?

                Nebulous debate won’t get us out of the hole …

      • corodale 5.1.3
        10 September 2018 at 10:01 am

        yes, but do you take the next step and add cow methane? I would say, not as a 1:1 with CO2 eq.

        Seriously, you wont make progress if you tax cow methane. Unless it applies as a limit, farm specific at reg council level, cap on cows/ha, which drives organic fert, to cropping food, n pushing hay, grassing and dung beetles, and natural soil n light-based N assimilation. A 10%p/a reduction on methane limit is ok, if it is measured against organic practices, to avoid 1080 style solutions with spraying chemicals on pasture to reduce methane during digestion. Plantain and chicory are real options, KISS without GE n BS.

  6. Draco T Bastard 6
    8 September 2018 at 7:33 pm

    So what might it tell us, when a gathering about the future viability of how we live attracts a smattering of people from a single demographic, and a gathering about the use of a poison seemingly attracts every demographic but, and (maybe) two or three times as many people?

    That the majority of people are a bunch uninformed fuckwits who have absolutely NFI WTF they’re talking about?

    If these people want to protect the environment from possums then, ATM, we need 1080. We simply have nothing else to replace it until the scientists produce a drug that makes all possums in NZ infertile.

    I don’t know what, if any, information was available from the 1080 gathering.

    We can pretty much assume that it was all lies. Same as the BS about vaccines causing autism.

    • Stuart Munro 6.1
      8 September 2018 at 9:22 pm

      The aerial use of 1080 flies in the face of all recent progress in terms of bait stations and the like in reducing collateral kills. So we cannot pretend that it is a measure with any pro-environmental intent – aerial 1080 drops cheerfully kill native species.

      It’s a budgetary move – a calculation that massive poisoning will create a net environmental benefit. But it deliberately ignores counter evidence, like the survival of rat populations through successive drops. And it estimates collateral kills based on found body counts, not remainder population counts, when it should do both because bird bodies are readily missed, and understating them overstates the safety and validity of the practice.

      Perhaps most importantly however, there is little or no public support for mass poisoning programs, however much they may appeal to Treasury, the architect of so many of the howling disasters still afflicting our long suffering nation.

      • gsays 6.1.1
        8 September 2018 at 9:29 pm

        Well said Stuart, I’ve long maintained that the only way 1080 use can be justified is through a balance sheet lens.

        • corodale 6.1.1.1
          10 September 2018 at 10:08 am

          That fits my world view, as I see Sage as a top quality Minister. This is an example, yet again of governance by finance, the capital overload of debt n QE. The people are puppets, but they are making the least bad option, til things are fine tuned.

      • Draco T Bastard 6.1.2
        8 September 2018 at 11:23 pm

        The aerial use of 1080 flies in the face of all recent progress in terms of bait stations and the like in reducing collateral kills.

        [citation needed]

        It’s a budgetary move – a calculation that massive poisoning will create a net environmental benefit.

        Yes it is and yes it does.

        But it deliberately ignores counter evidence, like the survival of rat populations through successive drops.

        No it doesn’t. It accepts that drops will not be 100% effective. That it’s actually impossible for it to be 100% effective but that it improves survivability of native species.

        And it estimates collateral kills based on found body counts, not remainder population counts, when it should do both because bird bodies are readily missed,

        [Citation needed]

        Although, all the actual evidence that I’ve seen shows native populations increasing after a drop while rat and other pests decrease.

        Perhaps most importantly however, there is little or no public support for mass poisoning programs

        Popularity != right thing to do

        Especially when the people actually don’t know WTF they’re talking about.

        • Stuart Munro 6.1.2.1
          9 September 2018 at 12:28 pm

          I might try and find the citations for you – but if you didn’t know how the collateral kill rate was calculated, how much trust should we repose in your belief that the effect is net positive? How one calculates things has a big effect on measured outcomes.

          This 1080 thing falls into the category of heroic interventions – it requires great scrupulousness and adherence to precautionary principles because it involves the killing of protected species. As with any budget driven initiative of course ecological wisdom and prudence are the first things thrown out the window.

          It’s not about popularity but democratic assent. Who the hell do these poisoners think they are killing native species? They can and should be charged for their collateral kills.

          1080 is an autocratic policy created by the infallible fuckwits in Wellington. There are few to no boots on the ground ensuring that what they think they’re doing is what is actually happening – as evidenced by the 1080 dumping on Stewart Island.

          • JC 6.1.2.1.1
            9 September 2018 at 9:33 pm

            “1080 is an autocratic policy created by the infallible fuckwits in Wellington. There are few to no boots on the ground ensuring that what they think they’re doing is what is actually happening – as evidenced by the 1080 dumping on Stewart Island.”

            Hmmm Don’t think they All live in Wellys … Some Reading for you Stuart, and gsays ….

            “Journalist Dave Hansford Hansford has had 39 jobs, according to a friend’s calculation. Among others, he’s been a fisherman, a truck driver, a golf green keeper, a general hand on a farm and a pie baker.

            Dave Hansford wrote a book about the pest poison 1080 because “someone had to”.

            “I’d grown tired of seeing the volume and the extremity and the sheer amounts of BS in circulation about 1080,” he says.”

            http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/92620150/national-portrait-1080-author-dave-hansford

            https://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/news/105497683/environment-southland-to-investigate-1080-dump-on-stewart-island

            https://thespinoff.co.nz/science/17-07-2018/1080-does-not-kill-kiwis-on-the-contrary-it-helps-them-live/

            https://www.pce.parliament.nz/…/update-report-evaluating-the-use-of-1080-predators-…

            Realise this is off topic on the Post! But then so are your, (and gsays) maligned threads ….

            • Stuart Munro 6.1.2.1.1.1
              9 September 2018 at 11:14 pm

              With respect, he’s not really coming to grips with the science.

              If you’re going to use sampling to justify a policy, you want to take pains to get the sampling right – especially if it involves killing the species your policies ostensibly aim to protect.

              The scientific justifications of the 1080 campaign that I’ve seen to date don’t hold water, and neither do your links.

              Hansford – it’s an appeal to authority – a common feature of the campaign.

              The 1080 campaign is not directed at protecting birds, but at eliminating possible vectors for livestock disease. This goes some way to explaining why collateral kills are tolerated – if protecting bird species were in fact the reason for it collateral kills would not be tolerated – some of our bird species are quite stressed and it wouldn’t take much to tip them over the edge.

              • JC …
                10 September 2018 at 1:34 am

                When selecting arguments, particuarly one as bias/ and/or emotional as the pragmatic use of toxins, this issue will always be fraught.

                Similarly, perhaps as a comparison ,…. one could consider the recent advice of Peter Gluckmen, re contamination of houses from methamphetamine and attendent issues associated ….

                https://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2018/07/07/the-legacy-of-a-dismantled-prime-minister-revisited/

                Simiarly, it is useful to take objective advice, (albeit from Wellington) from another objective source …

                i.e. Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, ( Dr Jan Wright), “concluded that not only should 1080 use continue, but that we should use more of it.”

                https://www.pce.parliament.nz/our-work/news-insights/archive/2013/environment-commissioner-welcomes-epa-report-on-the-use-of-1080

                • Stuart Munro …
                  10 September 2018 at 7:24 am

                  Again with the appeals to authority.

                  Show me rigorous sampling – show me costs for proper bait stations and ground teams – show me population data for rats and stoats and 1080 pellets so small they won’t kill tomtits with a body mass of maybe 30 grams.

                  Funnily these are never the arguments that are made, because, like the P contamination, the 1080 campaign is only masquerading as science for PR purposes.

                  • corodale …
                    10 September 2018 at 10:11 am

                    These ground teams of trappers could be post school conscripts living in tents on a UBI to reduce housing demand.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      10 September 2018 at 11:27 am

                      I certainly feel that such groups, properly trained and supported, would be both better for the environment and have a better quality of life than those who were recently pushed into minimum wage bus driving as part of Wellington’s epic saga of managerial incompetence.

                    • gsays …
                      10 September 2018 at 12:24 pm

                      Sorry Bill, (ironically your example has been repeated here, diverse folk overwhelmingly impassioned by 1080, not a lot about CC).

                      Brilliant corodale, inspired thinking.

                      Here is a tune:https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uLPYSlgiDlE

                      There is a lack of imagination around this issue.
                      I had a look at your link JC, Dave Hansford’s book, again it seems to stay within a slim paradigm, and immediately dimisses imaginative schemes and minimizes the pain.

                      Why the dickens not do trials on peppering and write the science?

                      Money isn’t the issue, it is a lack of imagination and will.

                  • KJT …
                    10 September 2018 at 12:50 pm

                    Show me your evidence against judicious 1080 use.

                    You can’t, can you, because you prefer to ignore any science that doesn’t fit your reckons?

      • JC 6.1.3
        9 September 2018 at 9:19 pm

        “A group of prominent New Zealand Māori environmentalists and activists have signed onto a statement regarding the use of 1080.”

        http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1809/S00050/maori-environmentalists-and-activists-release-1080-statement.htm

  7. greywarshark 7
    8 September 2018 at 8:21 pm

    Bill
    I think you made valuable observations. Valuable to me anyway because I have noticed similar things. When it comes to rising for climate it tends to be the middle class who appear to be more interested in the planet, animal welfare, and green matters than in the welfare of ordinary people who are being the aforementioned planet, or the livable parts of it.

    The 1080 protest is the ordinary people who are pushed to the outer and able to supplement income with shooting animals or birds legally. They fear that the country is prepared to give them the Muroroa treatment; we don’t want this experiment near our main population areas but out in sparsely populated boondocks we’ll let it rip. Both sides have a point, as 1080 done carefully can blitz more predators than the native bird life that get a deadly dose. They also say that it doesn’t permanently affect water. But a hunting dog that is affected and dies is a member of the family, and a valuable help to catching feral pigs etc. So ordinary people in the country who have managed on a shoestring feel rightly threatened.

    By the way. Here is a quite good video link about climate change confusion that I came across – potholer54. Top 10 Climate Change Myths.

    • Dennis Frank 7.1
      9 September 2018 at 6:16 am

      Yes, an excellent resource for anyone presenting the topic to a savvy, sophisticated, scientifically literate audience! Totally bewildering to 99.9% of voters, of course.

      But where it would be most valuable is a class of science students interested in the topic, with the presenter freezing the video just after each telling point is made so the class can discuss it to clarify confusion and reinforce their comprehension.

      • greywarshark 7.1.1
        9 September 2018 at 10:56 am

        Dennis F
        That sort of thing is an absolutely brilliant idea. The speed that new info registers and then is overlayed can make it hard to absorb. I can read the paper and then try to remember just what has seemed important enough to my mind to take and hold. I have been dismayed that so few matters come to mind.

        Television is worse as visual and aural and the speed of images all clash. Speech needs visual reference for me, but discussion would help reinforce the value of the message.

        Students are taught measures to increase retaining info. In this age our educational facilities are not providing us all with a wide understanding of our world, our countryis political system and culture and we are left to pick it up from the media. We have to concentrate on learning those things that will help our specialist education. In our everyday world we need to use similar memory joggers to help us function in an informed way on culture, climate change, current philosophies etc. So we need acquired skills of analysis and critical thinking to identify trends and mindsets which will have negative outcomes. If we don’t understand, recognise the negatives and act to slow or change them they carry on and become mainstream.

        • Dennis Frank 7.1.1.1
          9 September 2018 at 11:06 am

          Good that you can see the potential but let’s hope it gets through to younger generations, both teachers & students, who can actually apply it!

          That said, wouldn’t surprise me at all if educational administrators were to forbid it because climate change isn’t in the syllabus & adults are meant to be dealing with it. And clamour from denialist politicians demanding kids be protected from propaganda, huh? 🙄

          • corodale 7.1.1.1.1
            10 September 2018 at 10:43 am

            Yes, could they slowly work through such a video during a year of military service. But, just because we and Minister Sage are capable of following the video, still doesn’t solve the challenge of a govt/military/market choosing a which video. Nah, very good.

  8. Pat 8
    8 September 2018 at 8:22 pm

    curious about the demographics of the two groups…is CC erroneously perceived as a ‘first world’ or middle class problem?

    • Bill 8.1
      8 September 2018 at 10:24 pm

      If I was working working class – busting my arse between running myself ragged and stressing about a fair number of basics, what am I getting on the TV and whatever else that might make me think “Hang on a minute!” when it comes to AGW?

      I notice the BBC has just come out with (from The Guardian)

      BBC admits ‘we get climate change coverage wrong too often’

      Make of that what you will.

      • Pat 8.1.1
        8 September 2018 at 10:40 pm

        busy and with perhaps more immediate concerns but that relies too much on stereotyping….agree the MSM is hardly pressing the issue but anyone would have to be living under a rock or deliberately ignoring the issue to be completely unaware.

        It may of course have been an aberration

        • Bill 8.1.1.1
          8 September 2018 at 11:03 pm

          I don’t think it was an aberration.

          But I’m way too tired to articulate my thoughts on it and sign-post some of the reasons I think lie behind it. Another time.

      • Pat 8.1.2
        8 September 2018 at 10:54 pm

        “But it adds: “Journalists need to be aware of the guest’s viewpoint and how to challenge it effectively. As with all topics, we must make clear to the audience which organisation the speaker represents, potentially how that group is funded and whether they are speaking with authority from a scientific perspective.” Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation does not disclose its source of funding.”

        Thought that would have been covered in the first semester of journalism…..obviously not for those employed by the BBC

  9. Timeforacupoftea 9
    8 September 2018 at 10:09 pm

    Oh come on Bill.
    ( Down by The Exchange, there was maybe something like 40 or 50 people and…well, the only demographic that seemed to be missing was the white middle class. )

    Can’t have been the white upperclass surely !

    Maybe it was a rent a mob gang as I noted yesterdayFriday Forest and Bird had a representative at Countdown Andersons Bay Road the same group that Greenpeace use with a very broad North American accent.

    As you know we have few Maori down here too bloody cold plenty of Asian around the Uni.
    We have mainly retired white people.

    Tell me the last time you saw a Prostitute on Dunedin Street Corners and tell me which one.

  10. sumsuch 10
    9 September 2018 at 1:13 am

    I love that climate change is not chewable for the media. Is it 15 or 30 years before this ridiculous media culture is chewed by the climate. I really want it to be the latter, for my oldage, but since the facts are ahead of the forecasts …