Abdicating our global responsibility

175 comments on “Abdicating our global responsibility ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Bored 1

   17 September 2012 at 8:35 am

   I was reading an article on Eenergybulletin.net that had a concluding paragraph that neatly encapsulated the issue that our current economic political regime presents: no regard to future generations. Before we fire off at only the National Party we need to reacquaint ourselves with the economic reality we have lived with since 1984, all parties are guilty because the dogma has not even been dented.

   From the neoliberal perspective, the biosphere is subject to human control, the market solves all problems,…. The value of future generations is nil, despite all rhetoric about responsibility to “our grandchildren.” Neoliberal ideology is wholly at odds with the biophysical realities that make human existence possible.

   http://energybulletin.net/stories/2012-09-14/neoliberalism-degrowth-and-fate-health-systems
2. Steve Wrathall 2

   17 September 2012 at 9:48 am

   Meanwhile back in the real world, the climate is stubbornly failing to catastrophically warm, Antarctic ice is increasing, and the sea-levels are failing to rise by anything more than the ~3 mm/year that they have since before the industrial age.
   http://en.mercopress.com/2012/03/31/height-of-antarctica-ice-sheet-increasing
   http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
   Catastrophe cancelled.
   Nonetheless, deprive the poor of cheap reliable energy anyway.
   • r0b 2.1

     17 September 2012 at 10:25 am

     See OP on deniers.
     • Bored 2.1.1

       17 September 2012 at 10:40 am

       I deliberately did not respond to the comment “meanwhile back in the real world”. Enough said, the day is too precious to waste.
     • Steve Wrathall 2.1.2

       17 September 2012 at 10:45 am

       What specific proposition do you claim is being denied?
   • Richard Christie 2.2

     17 September 2012 at 10:29 am

     So many PRATTs
   • mike e 2.3

     17 September 2012 at 10:51 am

     Steve wrathall so you haven’t done any research on climate change and figured out that the Antarctic is isolated due to the Antarctic Oceans current keeping warm water away from the continent so slowing down the process.
     Sheet ice may have expanded but permanent ice is melting and giant ice bergs are breaking off the continent!
     Facts right Steve dog whistle.
     Carbon dioxide levels continue to rise!
     Have a look at the pacific sea level as well SW
     So the sea has risen 50mmto 60mm in 20 years that will have an impact and given their is a delay in what the ocean does ie deep currents are warming as well which do not show up for 10 to12 years as these currents are absorbing heat at the moment but will release that energy later increasing the rate of global warming.
     • Steve Wrathall 2.3.1

       17 September 2012 at 11:51 am

       “…giant ice bergs are breaking off the continent!”
       Yes, that’s what’s called calving. It’s a natural process. What are they supposed to do? Stay attached to the ice shelf until it reached Fiji?

       And your mysticism about the heat being hidden in deep currents defies physics. Any part of the oceans heating will cause thermal expansion which will show up as sea level rise. For decades the alarmists have been predicting “metres” of Sea level rise this century-that’s centimetres PER YEAR. Now, 12 years into the 21st century we only see about a tenth of their catastrophist prediction, it’s time to call them on their BS.
       • mike e 2.3.1.1

         17 September 2012 at 12:35 pm

         Silly Wanker.defies physics I read scientific research papers .
         What sort of physics does it defy
         You are one naive idiot.
         The NZ govt spent $32 million dollars on global warming research you spent nothing except a bit of broadband space to find some Right wing Conspiracy theory.
         I’ve spent considerable time with an Antarctic scientist who just happens to be doing some of that govt research !
         Her knowledge is Knowledge yours Is the BS>
         • Steve Wrathall 2.3.1.1.1

           17 September 2012 at 12:45 pm

           Abuse-Check
           Argument of authority-check
           Never talk about the science-check

           Yep, you’ve read the warmist memos.

           And where did you get this odd notion that the truth is determined by how much is spent promoting it?
           • Colonial Viper 2.3.1.1.1.1

             17 September 2012 at 12:48 pm

             And where did you get this odd notion that the truth is determined by how much is spent promoting it?

             Well, I’m a fan of the multibillionaire Koch brothers. Aren’t you?

             btw for the slow learners here I believe Mike e was suggesting that $32M of honest investigative scientific effort is worth listening to. I agree.
             • Steve Wrathall …

               17 September 2012 at 1:34 pm

               This research (e.g. controlling sheep farts) is conducted in a framework that presupposes that AGW is imminent, catastrophic, and in need of top-down restrictions on freedom globally. All of these premises have been totally corrupted by politicised science.
               • Richard Christie …

                 17 September 2012 at 3:11 pm

                 It always boils down to a konspiracy theory.

                 Every time.

                 AGW deniers have nothing else, especially scientific evidence.
           • mike e 2.3.1.1.1.2

             17 September 2012 at 12:53 pm

             Wrathall bona fida scientific research no spin like your BS!
             You as a taxpayer paid for this!
             National has largely ignored it.
         • grumpy 2.3.1.1.2

           17 September 2012 at 12:48 pm

           From my own studies, I see that house prices in the Marlborough Sounds have not fallen (as one might expect given imminent catastrophic sea level rise predictions), in fact those properties closer to the shoreline have actually increased in price!

           The country, aka the “market” is not listening…………………
           • Colonial Viper 2.3.1.1.2.1

             17 September 2012 at 12:52 pm

             Its a great self fulfilling prophecy…from the market perspective, as long as asset prices are increasing, it is a solid investment. Right up to the day it falls off the cliff.
             • grumpy …

               17 September 2012 at 4:20 pm

               Hi CV, but I don’t want a house on a cliff, just near the sea, as close to the edge the better. I figure the price has to start falling soon…….
           • Draco T Bastard 2.3.1.1.2.2

             17 September 2012 at 4:37 pm

             And what are the insurance premiums doing?
   • Johnm 2.4

     17 September 2012 at 1:32 pm

     Hi Steve Wrathall
     I’d be interested to get your opinion on this article: ”
     Vanishing Arctic Ice Is the Planet’s White Flag of Surrender
     The planet’s last great global ice melt left a benign and balmy climate in which civilisation was cradled: the new great melting heralds a grave threat to civilisation”

     Link: http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/09/15-5

     I hope you’re right and all this is so much baloney! 🙂 🙂 🙂
     • Steve Wrathall 2.4.1

       17 September 2012 at 4:51 pm

       Why cherry-pick the Arctic? The Antarctic contains the vast majority of the land-borne ice that is required to melt if these catastrophist predictions are to come to pass. And it stays stubbornly frozen. Increasing actually.
       • Kotahi Tāne Huna 2.4.1.1

         17 September 2012 at 4:56 pm

         Antarctic ice mass loss continues apace, as satellite data shows. Would you like to display some more wrathall, or are you simply out of your depth?
         • Macro 2.4.1.1.1

           17 September 2012 at 7:45 pm

           Steve is so far out – it’s way over his head!
       • Johnm 2.4.1.2

         17 September 2012 at 7:07 pm

         hi steve
         http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/02/is-antarctica-getting-warmer

         Is Antarctica getting warmer and gaining ice?

         Attempts to answer the question came up with estimates ranging from an increase of about 100bn tonnes of ice per year since the 1960s to a loss of 200bn tonnes a year over the same period. However, more recent reports agree that the ice sheet is losing ice – and indeed that the rate of loss has been speeding up.

         Ice loss is not uniform over the whole of the ice sheet. Eastern Antarctica was initially found to be relatively stable, with most of the ice being lost in Western Antarctica, particularly around the Antarctic Peninsula. These regional differences in ice loss fit with the pattern of temperature change over the ice sheet.

         However, more recent reports agree that the ice sheet is losing ice – and indeed that the rate of loss has been speeding up.
         • Macro 2.4.1.2.1

           17 September 2012 at 7:52 pm

           Steve may reply that there is increased snow fall in recent years – thinking that this indicates that it is getting cooler! lol He fails to realise that a temperature of minus 20 degrees is still warmer than a temperature of minus 30 degrees and yet at both temperatures snow will form. He also fails to acknowledge the simple fact that increases in precipitation rates are indicative of a warming atmosphere. He is a sad misguided idiot.
           • Carol 2.4.1.2.1.1

             17 September 2012 at 7:59 pm

             Exactly. When this Aucklander lived in London, I learned that sometimes it’s just too cold to snow. The snow can fall later, as the temperature warms up.
           • Steve Wrathall 2.4.1.2.1.2

             17 September 2012 at 9:52 pm

             More ice? Yep that’s AGW. Less Ice? Yep that’s AGW. Who needs religion when you have a belief that every possible observation confirms.
             • Populuxe1 …

               17 September 2012 at 9:56 pm

               Judging by your scientific illiteracy, our school system failed long before this government. Let’s start with the basics – do you know why the coils at the back of your fridge are hot?
             • Dv …

               17 September 2012 at 9:57 pm

               Climate change steve!!

               Duh
             • Macro …

               17 September 2012 at 10:15 pm

               This is will be my one and only comment directed to you Steve – you really don’t have a clue do you!
               You profess to know everything about the topic yet seem to have no understanding of the basic principles of weather. Are you not aware that an increase in atmospheric temperature will lead to an increase in water vapour?
               I don’t expect a sensible answer because you are so bound up in your cult of denial – your behaviour here is analogous to that of a religious freak – denying all evidence to the contrary and when indisputable facts are presented to you retreating to a position that it is all a conspiracy! Unbelievable denial.
             • RedLogix …

               17 September 2012 at 10:27 pm

               @ macro.

               I had typed out a long and proper explanation for steve. Then deleted it … I really couldn’t see him understanding it.

               So I then shortened it down to a simple, pithy kind of explanation … but that was too simplistic to be correct.

               So in the end I was left wishing I had delusions one tenth as grand as Steve’s.
               • Macro …

                 17 September 2012 at 10:31 pm

                 🙂
                 I had to add one lower down – re carbon tax – totally agree with your sentiments .
   • mickysavage 2.5

     17 September 2012 at 2:19 pm

     We are just coming out of winter, of course antarctic ice has been increasing …
     • lprent 2.5.1

       17 September 2012 at 3:47 pm

       Steve is also somewhat simplistic about climate change. He assumes that it operates like a blackbody and must go up everywhere. Of course he hasn’t quite cottoned on to the fact that the world already has different tempatures and climatic processes in different areas.

       As usual he doesn’t actually state what he is talking about. Probably because he is too much of a dumbarse to do more than repeat someone elses words like bald parrot. However….

       East Antarctica is currently (over the last decade) accreting ice year on year. But it isn’t the evidence against climate change that Steve imagines it to be. It is rather worrying. Ice accretion is what you expect when a cold region starts to get an increased supply of water vapour. The problem is that East Antarctica has been a pretty dry place because the circum Antarctic jetstreams and ocean currents haven’t allowed much water vapour to move inland. So the appearance of more water vapour and more ice indicates that there may have been a breakdown in the containment.

       Problem is that we’re short of solid data in East Antarticia, so we don’t know for sure if this is extra water is a result of normal long-term variation or not. But the icecores from the region indicate that the ice formation has been static for quite some time and at least for the last 10k years. Faster ice formation in the ice is not a good sign.

       Incidentally, if you go back a few decades, you will see the same ice accretion happening in the interior of Greenland for the same reason. These days the mass wasting of the Greenland icepack is getting ever more rapid. The main reason is because water vapour is a extraordinarily good transporter of heat. Weather and much of climatic is simply a reflection of that.

       Meanwhile West Antarctica is showing signs of ice wasting.
   • Draco T Bastard 2.6

     17 September 2012 at 4:30 pm

     Antarctic ice is increasing

     Um, no, it really isn’t:

     The authors’ analysis shows ice loss in the study area of at least 11.2 gigatons (11.2 billion tons) per year from 2001 to 2006. Their ongoing work shows ice loss from 2006 to 2010 was almost as large, averaging 10.2 gigatons (10.2 billion tons) per year.

     That’s somewhere in the vicinity of 10 cubic kilometres of ice lost per year.

     Really, the only thing you proved with your comment was that you’re one of NACTs useful idiots.
     • Steve Wrathall 2.6.1

       17 September 2012 at 4:57 pm

       No Antarctic Ice is increasing
       http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495_2012013235.pdf
       Even at your claimed loss of 10 km3/year , the 30 million km3 of Antarctic ice would take 3 million years to melt.
       Catastrophe cancelled
       • Kotahi Tāne Huna 2.6.1.1

         17 September 2012 at 5:32 pm

         Not more witless wrathall! The abstract you link to says:

         “A slow increase in snowfall with climate warming, consistent with model predictions, may be offsetting increased dynamic losses.”

         So, yet another observed dataset agrees with predictions, and you think it supports your bias. Not very good at this doubt game are you?
         • mickysavage 2.6.1.1.1

           17 September 2012 at 8:55 pm

           Crosby Textor can you send anyone better than Steve Wrathall to debate with?  He lacks basic skills of comprehension amongst other things …
           • RedLogix 2.6.1.1.1.1

             17 September 2012 at 9:03 pm

             Hilariously they hardly ever actually read the documents they link to …
             • Colonial Viper …

               17 September 2012 at 9:34 pm

               And are always surprised when someone else actually does.
         • Steve Wrathall 2.6.1.1.2

           17 September 2012 at 9:57 pm

           Their data shows increased ice cover. But of course many researchers nonetheless feel obliged to put a warmist spin on it. What they are actually admitting to is a significant negative feedback effect, which will counteract catastrophist predictions.
           • Richard Christie 2.6.1.1.2.1

             17 September 2012 at 11:30 pm

             LOL, you just make it up as you go along.
       • mike e 2.6.1.2

         18 September 2012 at 11:05 am

         SW that does not include rate of increase ! so tell me that we have all glaciers on earth retreating except a few on shaded mountains and the Arctic and Antarctic melting where is it supposed to go!
         As I have pointed out to you before is the Antarctic is Isolated by the currents of the Antarctic Ocean.
         Eventually the heat will be absorbed by this current and the rate of Antarctic melt will increase!
         Our own scientists were working with other scientists core drilling various parts of the Antarctic ice to huge depths, the single most important piece of data they uncovered was the levels of Carbon Dioxide!
         The levels of carbon dioxide had never before been that high with out catastrophe!
         We are above that level now in the last 200 hundred years through industrialisation we are emitting more Carbon Dioxide than the planet can cope with!
         • Steve Wrathall 2.6.1.2.1

           18 September 2012 at 11:28 am

           “Eventually the heat will…”
           Predictions are not evidence.

           “The levels of carbon dioxide…”
           FOLLOW temperature by ~800 years. Clearly CO2 is not the major driver of temperature.

           “… had never before been that high with out …”

           bounteous plant growth, which we are already seeing.

           “…we are emitting more Carbon Dioxide …”

           Great! All that long-dead carbon, living again. Producing food, fibre, and lovely people like you.
           • mike e 2.6.1.2.1.1

             18 September 2012 at 11:35 am

             Yeah right bounteous growth stick to the Kardasians Silly Wanker is that why half the planet is in drought and food is in scarce supply!
             You are a bona fida idiot!
           • Kotahi Tāne Huna 2.6.1.2.1.2

             18 September 2012 at 11:35 am

             What the fuck are you blithering about Wrathall?

             Have you been cutting and pasting from the tired zombie list much?
           • lprent 2.6.1.2.1.3

             18 September 2012 at 1:19 pm

             “The levels of carbon dioxide…”
             FOLLOW temperature by ~800 years. Clearly CO2 is not the major driver of temperature.

             *sigh* You are describing for a end of a glacial. That is a natural event and it operates quite differently to having fossil CO2 being forced into the atmosphere. After climates have been cold for long periods they build up CO2 in the oceans and particularly in cold bottom ocean currents because cold water is more efficient at adsorbing CO2 than warm water. When the climate turns warm again as a result of orbital mechanics causing glacials to finish, the oceans start releasing their excess CO2. Since bottom currents usually take centuries to go from the poles to the equatorials as part of the tempature circulation of the earth, there is a lag.

             Now this particular myth has been around long enough to have its balls drop and start acting like pimply faced unthinking adolescent like your act. So I guess that you are just demonstrating your laziness about not googling again. So I’ll help you out… http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

             But it could just be your inability to engage your brain again. In which case I can only hope that you don’t breed. We really don’t need any more typical aussie males around

             Edit: I made that last comment and then realised that you weren’t from a kiwi IP… Sarrry mateeeee – I realize you can’t help it.
3. higherstandard 3

   17 September 2012 at 9:59 am

   More regulated theft.

   There’s a lot of it knocking about.
   • Colonial Viper 3.1

     17 September 2012 at 10:47 am

     As opposed to the free market unregulated theft of the telcos, banks, power and other utility infrastructure providers?
     • higherstandard 3.1.1

       17 September 2012 at 12:36 pm

       I think you’ll find that’s a mixture of regulated and unregulated theft with a jolly good dollop of cartelling and a sprinkle of monopolistic behaviour.
     • mike e 3.1.2

       17 September 2012 at 12:45 pm

       CV Govt lackeys Consultants $1billionsworth.
       The destruction that
       Alcohol does $6 billion
       Gambling$ 6billion
       Poverty$6 billion+
       Work place Accidents $3.5 billion
       She ‘ll be Right the RWNJ”s answer to everything just doe nothing and spin.
       $1.2 billion Subsidy to farmers and heavy carbon users
       No regulation=Poverty
       • Colonial Viper 3.1.2.1

         17 September 2012 at 12:50 pm

         Well, poverty for the many. The top 20% do marginally OK out of the system, the top 5% do very well, and the top 0.1% make out like robber barons.
   • Macro 3.2

     17 September 2012 at 8:00 pm

     I take it that you mean the theft by polluters from the likes of taxpayers? Now if THAT is what you are railing against – I agree! I’m sick to death of this govt asking me to “bail out” the super rich.
4. Polish Pride 4

   17 September 2012 at 10:03 am

   ETS is never and was never going to fix climate change or anything else for that matter. It is simply another tax to redistribute wealth away from people. If you believe in man made climate change. you need to reverse the damage that has been done. Reforest using biodiverse principles just as already exists in many primary forests and eco systems around the world. This doesn’t have to cost much either. Seed propogation and other cutting propogation is free.
   The only thing ETS does is create a tax for a problem it can never solve and therefore the tax will always exist for generations. It is BS.
   • r0b 4.1

     17 September 2012 at 10:23 am

     So you don’t believe in market forces and price signals and the like at all? You’d vote for moving to a centrally planned and regulated economy? Just asking…
     • Colonial Viper 4.1.1

       17 September 2012 at 10:42 am

       Hi r0b,

       Well, a more centrally regulated economy will still have markets and will still use market mechanisms. And it takes a lot to counter the capitalist instinct of sell more, consume more, increase sales, maximise profits, grow exponentially, which leads to very rapid rates of resource use.

       To attain the 20% reduction in total fossil fuel energy use there is going to need to be a large amount of central planning and regulation. For instance, the market will not move 200,000 cars off the road over the next 10 years by itself (and replace with public transport and more people friendly cities). Neither will the market build 200,000 double glazed, super-insulated houses with solar water heating over the next 10 years.

       And when it comes to reducing the numbers of cows in NZ by 20% plus…I doubt the market is going to deliver that alone either.

       Now, could Government impose price signals to force that many cars (and cows) off the road? Yes it could. A $1.50/L petrol (milk) tax would probably do it. Or, more fairly for lower income earners, you simply ration out the number of new car (new cow???) registrations available every year. Either way, its central planning and regulation, the question being how much of it you want to do directly, and how much indirectly through the market.
       • Polish Pride 4.1.1.1

         17 September 2012 at 11:04 am

         Thanks to your suggestion in an earlier post CV I have started writing a book on how I think the new system should be and how we get there from where we are today.
         • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.1

           17 September 2012 at 11:57 am

           Dude, wow 😀
     • mike e 4.1.2

       17 September 2012 at 10:53 am

       You mean like national have done in Canterbury rob!
     • Polish Pride 4.1.3

       17 September 2012 at 10:59 am

       How do you get that from my post!?! My view is that the Market has served its purpose in many aspects but is inadequate to solve many of the problems facing Humanity
       Poverty – We produce more than enough food to feed the entire world populace (a few times over) But we still have people around the world starving. Why? Simply because it is not profitable to feed them. In many Western countries we have an obesity epidemic. Why? because it IS profitable to overfeed the west. This alone is a failing of the market system. There is a fundamental need that the market has been failing to satisfy for about 30 years or more.
       We have Wars for profit for companies such as Halliburton, Locheed Martin and Construction companies such as DynCorp and many others
       The figures on this link make compelling reading http://www.militaryindustrialcomplex.com/what-is-the-military-industrial-complex.asp
       When war becomes a multi trillion dollar industry you can expect to see a lot more of it.
       Theres more failings in medicine and energy too.
       There’s massive squandering of resources through planned obselecence.
       You know incidious things such as Human trafficking and Child pornography…..Thats your market in action!! Sick individual has depraved need or want, Another individual seeks to provide the solution to that individual …for a fee of course….
       I could go on and on and on here as the failings are vast and numerous.

       The system I want is one that is controlled by the people through true democracy backed by an agreed constitution. If anything it is largely decentralized with a bare minimum of roles being centralised. (Centralised power has lead to the corruption and downfall of almost every system throughout history).
       Where resources are available for all to satisfy the needs and wants that everyone has.
       Where the goal of the system is NOT to make sure we have as many people as possible employed. Instead the opposite is true. That the goal of the system is to automate any role possible so that it no longer needs to be performed by someone. That person is then free to do the things that they are passionate about. Spend time with those most important – Friends and Family.
       There is no need for ‘Money’ in this society. Money and the persuit of it is the cause of most of the worlds problems. It has reached the point where it is no longer simply a mechanism for exchange. It is now a barrier that stops people having the resources that they want and in too many cases actually need.
       Under such a system 80 percent of crime would dissappear and nearly all would have access to more than they do now, yet less resources would be consumed.
       • Bored 4.1.3.1

         17 September 2012 at 12:00 pm

         Actually PP, whilst I pretty much agree with your last paragraph I cannot share any optimism on being able to deliver such. The major issue I see is the decline of resources (especially energy) that underpin our economies: they are going away whether we like it or not.

         The result will be one dictated by the extremes of human nature: I have no faith that we understand that we belong to communities and need our fellow human to cooperate and share with. In short we have become conditioned to be divorced from the common good, mere consumers. In the face of extreme adversity I question we any longer have the group psyche to respond intelligently.
       • muzza 4.1.3.2

         17 September 2012 at 12:10 pm

         Why? Simply because it is not profitable to feed them.

         Why, Simply because its more profitable, and makes resources, read human control, easier by not feeding them, and keeping prices of commodities artificially high via that control, and futures markets, exchanges etc.

         Fixed that part up.

         Otherwise agreed!

         Edit: I don’t see how this will come about however, amd with bored on that!
         • Polish Pride 4.1.3.2.1

           17 September 2012 at 2:22 pm

           Have a think about what Capitalism needs to survive……mass consumerism.
           Add a 3D printer into everyhousehold and I suspect you will see the collapse of the current systems. That said I believe that the change will come long before then.
           There are many people who are waking up to this way of thinking. When I first started talking about these concepts about 3 years ago, even mentioning the concept of a society without money was just too much for people to comprehend. I have seen these ideas start to grow at an almost exponential rate. To help understand why I recommend taking reading the source field investigations by David Wilcock (or watching his Youtube presentation on it).
         • Colonial Viper 4.1.3.2.2

           17 September 2012 at 2:24 pm

           Bored, muzza:

           that’s why John Michael Greer has been advocating the ‘green wizardry’ approach. Build up your own practical skills, health and resources, while coaching and making connections with the people around you who are like minded.

           At the end of the day I believe our politics will make it very difficult for nation states to act in a timely and intelligent manner. It may very well come down to local communities doing the best they can for themselves, while nation states try and muddle their way through the mess.
           • Bored 4.1.3.2.2.1

             17 September 2012 at 4:36 pm

             CV, the Archdruid is very wise. Interestingly he talks mainly about two cures to our current dilemma:

             1. Having the skills
             2. Having community

             On the skills front I have found that most of the things I learnt as a teenager about wood, metal, gardening etc have stuck but what is obvious is that there are huge generational skills gaps. One of the good columns in TS is Weekend Social where we can discuss things like gardening. On a practical front using the above skills cuts a big chunk out of the food bill and getting rid of my car does a heap for the bank balance, both for the car costs and the saving on frivolous things (you dont go shopping unless you have to). Where most of us fall down is in expanding the social networks, I come from the pre-phoning ahead era where you just turned up. Most peoples social habits are now conditioned by the technology, online free flow, but less face to face. An online community is no good if the technology fails.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               17 September 2012 at 4:50 pm

               An online community is no good if the technology fails.

               Which it won;t do if we develop the skills and factories here in NZ to maintain it.
               • Bored …

                 17 September 2012 at 5:08 pm

                 Draco, trust me when I say that there are lots of ways the internet and phone system can come apart at the seams regardless of the skills and technology we currently have / use / develop. That is because our communications technology has multi layered complexity and requires massive embedded energy and rare elements. I have worked with the telecommunications and computer technology infrastructure for years: it is a disaster waiting to happen.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   17 September 2012 at 7:27 pm

                   It can come apart, yes, but it won’t if we develop the ability to maintain it from our own resources.

                   As for the embedded energy well, a society gets richer by increasing the amount of embedded energy that it has by building and maintaining factories, schools and libraries and it does that through R&D and ensuring that there are people with necessary skills.

                   …it is a disaster waiting to happen.

                   And such a disaster will only happen if we don’t do anything to prevent it. It most definitely will happen if we leave it to the market and the dead-weight loss of profit.
         • muzza 4.1.3.2.3

           17 September 2012 at 3:42 pm

           Edit: I don’t see how this will come about however, amd with bored on that!

           I should have said: Edit: I don’t see how this will come about, without a very big mess!

           CV – Copy that, like minded people is the key, less likely to panic when the SHTF

           Polish – Yes there does seem to be a shift happening, I agree with that.
     • Macro 4.1.4

       17 September 2012 at 8:03 pm

       A carbon tax is really the only fair way to go. ETS ‘s are far too open to deviant “market” behaviour as we are currently seeing from the admittedly shonkey scheme we now have.
5. Populuxe1 5

   17 September 2012 at 11:29 am

   Well, while I believe a carbon tax on polluters is a better solution, I don’t see why the taxpayer shouldn’t carry some of the cost – after all, we are providing the demand that fuels the polluting. It would seem to be a responsible thing to do as global citizens.
   • Polish Pride 5.1

     17 September 2012 at 2:11 pm

     That depends on whether or not you want to actually fix the problem. The Tax is only good for providing an incentive to change the behaviour of those that will not otherwise change. It will not fix the problem..to do that you need a different solution.
     • Populuxe1 5.1.1

       17 September 2012 at 2:18 pm

       I love it when people thow out such phrases as if it’s the easiest thing in the world to recalibrate a climate system about to go to shit. Pray do tell how this miracle may be accomplished?
       • Polish Pride 5.1.1.1

         17 September 2012 at 2:34 pm

         Populuxe – first I don’t believe it is possible to recalibrate, These changes are happening with the sun and on other planets in our solar system according to Nasa.
         However if you do believe in ‘Man made Climate Change’ and you believe that ‘Man’ has the solution. Then look to nature for the solution. The problem is with nature so what have we changed from the original state that could be the problem.
         At the risk of greatly oversimplifying it
         exponential population growth
         exponential growth of animals to feed the population through modern intensive farming methods
         Massive deforestation.
         IF you subscribe to man made climate change … embark on programmes to reforest the planet using principles of biodiversity. In other words replicate nature.
         If you think this is too simple then look at the simple science that comes with it and things will make sense.
         The reason this is not the solution is two fold
         1. it will fix the problem and there’s no longer a need for a tax.
         2. There’s no real way to make money from this solution.
         • Populuxe1 5.1.1.1.1

           17 September 2012 at 2:53 pm

           OK, so not actual science, just a lot of touchy feely one with the earth lip service.

           Populuxe – first I don’t believe it is possible to recalibrate, These changes are happening with the sun and on other planets in our solar system according to Nasa.

           I think that would come as news to Nasa, what with them being scientists and all. Please cite a reference for this astrological observation (yes, I meant astrological, not astronomical)

           However if you do believe in ‘Man made Climate Change’ and you believe that ‘Man’ has the solution. Then look to nature for the solution. The problem is with nature so what have we changed from the original state that could be the problem.

           The problem isn’t with nature, it’s with the effects of massive industrial pollution on a self regualting system that can’t cope with it. Unless nature is going to magically conjure up a super-algae that gobbles greenhouse gasses nature is going to need all of the help it can get.

           At the risk of greatly oversimplifying it
           exponential population growth
           exponential growth of animals to feed the population through modern intensive farming methods
           Massive deforestation.

           Is this news to you? Duh.

           IF you subscribe to man made climate change … embark on programmes to reforest the planet using principles of biodiversity. In other words replicate nature.
           If you think this is too simple then look at the simple science that comes with it and things will make sense.
           The reason this is not the solution is two fold

           And still insufficent – reforesting will still only deal with a certain amount of the carbon – emissions must be reduced if any moderation of teh effects of global warming is to be achieved. It’s not so much simple as patronising.

           1. it will fix the problem and there’s no longer a need for a tax.
           2. There’s no real way to make money from this solution.

           (1) It won’t fix the problem without major changes to the global economic system to allow it to work,
           (2) Who was suggesting making money off it? We’re trying to avoid global catastrophe. Your moneyless utopia isn’t simply going to come into being overnight of its own accord, so better to bring the polluters into line with the language they understand.
           • Polish Pride 5.1.1.1.1.1

             17 September 2012 at 3:09 pm

             Populuxe – What you think that science is the be all and end all !?!
             Q. for you when you throw a rock into a stream near a trout which way does it swim to escape and why?
             See now that is a question posed to Science that science couldn’t answer.
             Science is Natures very very poor cousin.
             The Science equivalent once believed the world was flat remember.
             If you do actually think science has all the answers worth looking at and is the be all and end all you still have a lot to learn.
             • Populuxe1 …

               17 September 2012 at 3:14 pm

               Populuxe – What you think that science is the be all and end all !?!

               *Sigh* “Science (from Latin scientia, meaning “knowledge”) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.” – thank you Wikipedia
               • Polish Pride …

                 17 September 2012 at 3:40 pm

                 And if only that was what science did with impartiality and no bias to the results.
                 You should also read Source field investigations – I suspect you would learn much about the world you live in – you’d like it it’s science based.
                 • Kotahi Tāne Huna …

                   17 September 2012 at 3:41 pm

                   The bias is eventually exposed by nature. Or in Nature.
               • Polish Pride …

                 17 September 2012 at 3:50 pm

                 If we should be listening to science Populuxe….. and I am not saying that we shouldn’t
                 Don’t you find it at least a little curious that after they got all the science in on climate change. The powers that be decided to run with a financial solution to the problem!?!

                 If they were really serious about fixing the problem wouldn’t governments around the world be embarking on reforestation programs.. I mean as plants absorb CO2 and we can ..well plant more plants. Wouldn’t they do both…..If they were really serious about fixing the problem. The answer should be YES.

                 so as they haven’t done that …what does that indicate.
                 They don’t believe it?
                 Or They just aren’t that serious about fixing it….
                 • lprent …

                   17 September 2012 at 3:54 pm

                   As I pointed out elsewhere in this post. Reforestation wouldn’t even touch the edge of the problem. There is simply too much CO2 from fossil fuels being burnt for any type of plantings to fix.

                   The only realistic solution is reduce the emissions from fossil fuels..
                   • Polish pride …

                     17 September 2012 at 4:12 pm

                     Of course iprent your about to post the study to back up your assertion
                   • Populuxe1 …

                     17 September 2012 at 4:53 pm

                     @PP

                     R. A. Betts et al., Nature 408, 187 (2000).

                     G. Bala et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 104, 6550 (2007).

                      
                   • Polish Pride …

                     17 September 2012 at 8:30 pm

                     http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2012/reforestation.html
                     As UCS Director of Climate Research and Analysis, Doug Boucher coordinates the work of scientists, economists, and other analysts in the Climate and Energy Program. The Tropical Forest and Climate Initiative, which he directs, works with governments, businesses, and consumers to reduce tropical deforestation and the global warming pollution associated with land use.Dr. Boucher earned a B.A. in ecology and history from Yale University and a Ph.D. in ecology and evolutionary biology from the University of Michigan.

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

                     http://www.gpem.uq.edu.au/reforestation-mitigate-climate-change

                     http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5882/1458.short
                   • lprent []

                     17 September 2012 at 9:59 pm

                     As others have pointed out – read your own links… Full scale forestry at best will manage to suck up maybe 20% of the excess co2 in a year. Fossil fuel consumption increases by something like 4% per year.

                     Forests will release much of that CO2 either when felled, or when it burns… But in an case it won’t hold the carbon for anything like the thousands of years that CO2 will remain resident in the atmosphere.

                     And wood cellulose doesn’t even perform usefully as a biofuel feedstock – so it makes it difficult to use as a substitute for fossil fuels.

                     Dreaming about something doesn’t make it useful.
                   • Polish Pride …

                     18 September 2012 at 6:24 am

                     20% is better than nought. I am also not talking about full scale forestry.
                     I am talking about re-establishing biodiverse tracts of forest using permaculture principles which If the right trees shrubs etc. (it is possible to have about 7 levels in the space that one tree takes up). That is likely to be significantly more than 20%.
                     The links where to show that even science recommends reforestation.
                   • lprent []

                     18 September 2012 at 7:07 am

                     Reforestation is worthwhile in its own right for many reasons from erosion, water catchments, use as a building material, etc. However to view it as being any kind of solution to mopping excess fossil carbon in the atmosphere and oceans is just daft.

                     Think what would be required to put in massive forests, it is a great expenditure of energy, specifically fuels to transport people and materials. Because to get to 20% we’d have to reforest much of the worlds land area. We’d probably have to expend far more in direct or indirect CO2 emissions than we’d fix in the first few years of tree growth.

                     Never mind the other practical implications of covering our productive agricultural land with trees.

                     And in terms of how much fossil CO2 gets fixed over 50 years or so, it is a meaningless diversion. Carbon fixing like this is only useful if it remains sequestered from the atmosphere. As forests hit maturity they go into a carbon equilibrium releasing as much carbon as they consume in the carbon cycle through decomposition and fire. But the excesses of fossil carbon we released and are still releasing are still there and still changing climate.

                     If you want to sequester carbon for longer periods using biology, the best way would be to create deep swamps and permafrost tundra. In effect reproducing the conditions that led to the fossil carbon that we have been burning. A multi-tier tropical rain forest is a wimp in terms of carbon storage compared to a peat swamp. It is also considerably less productive biologically. It is just prettier to deluded nature cultists.

                     Reforestation simply won’t work if the amount of fossil carbon being burnt continues at the current rates and continues to increase its climate changing effects.
                 • Populuxe1 …

                   17 September 2012 at 4:03 pm

                   I think that the great heritage of Polish scientists from Copernicus to Madame Curie would be horrified at your ignorance of how science works.

                   We could plant whole forests in every country in the world and it will still only be temporarily pulling a temporary Hans Brinker.

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

                   Actually economic forces are probably the one thing powerful enough to force a massive change in globally regulating CO2 emissions when it’s quite clear that politics won’t.
                   • Polish pride …

                     17 September 2012 at 4:22 pm

                     1. I’m not polish, 6th gen kiwi actually
                     2. Nice Wikipedia link understand all that but it doesn’t say reforesting the planet isn’t the solution.
                   • Populuxe1 …

                     17 September 2012 at 4:29 pm

                     1. That probably shouldn’t come as a surprise to me as none of the Poles I know are stupid.
                     2. It doesn’t say that reforesting the planet is the solution either – mainly because Wikipedia’s science pages are generally not stupid either.
                   • Polish pride …

                     17 September 2012 at 5:31 pm

                     See populuxe I have found that often it is those with delusions of grandure of their own intelligence that cannot have a debate without calling someone who disagrees with them or their ideas idiotic. But let’s give you the benefit of the doubt and say you don’t have delusions of grandure about your iq. Let’s just say your perhaps still a tad immature. Perhaps you should try again
                   • Populuxe1 …

                     17 September 2012 at 5:53 pm

                     @PP
                     I don’t have delusions of grandeur about my IQ, I’m basing my observations on your almost willful lack of understanding of scientific method.
                 • Macro …

                   17 September 2012 at 9:02 pm

                   If you were to read the links you provide you would find that forests sequester about 18% of the total CO2 emitted from fossil fuels. But, in a warming world, they are more susceptible to drought, and fire – negating the mitigating effect. Furthermore, dark forests in Northern regions actually have a nett warming effect as a result of the reduced reflection.
                   There is no silver bullet here – the simple fact is we have to reduce our burning of fossil fuels – and fast.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     17 September 2012 at 9:07 pm

                     And reducing our use of fossil fuels significantly means reducing our GDP significantly.
                   • Macro …

                     17 September 2012 at 9:54 pm

                     CV – you are quite correct – and that is why we are a doomed species. 🙁
                     Our greed will not allow us to take the action we know we need to take – emissions will continue to climb, and the consequences are all too clear.
                     We are starting to hit the tipping points now the. Arctic sea ice could well be gone in 20 years
                     http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2012/09/models-are-improving-but-can-they-catch-up.html
                     – and now methane is starting to bubble from the Arctic – an oh shit moment if ever there was one!
                     http://english.ruvr.ru/2012_09_15/Methane-emissions-discovered-in-Arctic-Ocean/
                   • Steve Wrathall …

                     17 September 2012 at 10:13 pm

                     So reducing our GDP is part of our “global responsibility”? I’m sure out Pacific neighbours would be the first to complain about the subsequent lack of aid money.
                   • RedLogix …

                     17 September 2012 at 10:22 pm

                     What? Are you still imagining that the god of GDP can go on forever?

                     Let me restate that important point. No matter what the technology, a sustained 2.3% energy growth rate would require us to produce as much energy as the entire sun within 1400 years. A word of warning: that power plant is going to run a little warm. Thermodynamics require that if we generated sun-comparable power on Earth, the surface of the Earth—being smaller than that of the sun—would have to be hotter than the surface of the sun!

                     http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/

                     Of course the real limits happen much sooner.
                   • Steve Wrathall …

                     18 September 2012 at 9:54 am

                     So Macro, you say the Arctic ice gould be “gone in 20 years”. How is this different from the predictions that ice was supposed to have been gone by 2008?
                     http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3345666/North-Pole-ice-may-disappear-by-September.html
                     …or this year?
                     http://beyondzeroemissions.org/media/radio/dr-wieslaw-maslowski-predicted-2013-ice-free-summer-arctic-five-years-ago-now-he-says-ma
                     Just asking.
                   • lprent []

                     18 September 2012 at 10:53 am

                     Man – you are very very thick and incredibly lazy. If you’d actually read the links that you just posted then you will find that you have probably…

                     1. Confused the location of North Pole with the region of the Arctic. The first link is quite specific that the area that they were saying might go ice-free in 2008 was the North pole location. There was a broad hint in the very first paragraph that you obviously either didn’t read or didn’t think about (I suspect the former – as far as I can tell deniers seldom read the links they are given – it might cause them to think).

                     Ice at the North Pole may disappear completely within the next few months for the first time in 20,000 years.

                     Notice that it didn’t say the Arctic sea-ice everywhere was gone. Just in this one location. Now I don’t know for sure that it didn’t melt in that area in 2008 but it is quite likely. If you’d done even a small bit of googling you’d have found out why. The area they are talking about has relatively thin sea ice, so thin in fact that from 50 years ago they were easily able to push nuclear subs through it. Even that idiot meteorologist TV weatherman Watts has caught up with this basic fact. But I guess even looking at denier sites must be too much work for a lazy mushbrain like yourself.

                     2. And in your second link it appears that you have managed to confuse 2012 (the year we are currently in) with 2013 which is (surprise surprise) next year. This guy was saying in 2007 that there was a good chance that the Artic sea-ice would be largely gone in the summer of 2013. Now the Northern Arctic summer finishes about September. So lets look at what happened this year (link to the US Snow and Ice site is on the image). The purple line is the average summer extent of ice from 1979-2000. So the ice has dropped to about half in area

                     

                     Of course the extent is not as interesting as the volume and particularly multi-year sea ice… From the bottom of the above link it states that between March 2012 and August 2012

                     Much of the Arctic ice cover now consists of first-year ice (shown in purple), which tends to melt rapidly in summer’s warmth. However, the oldest ice, that had survived five or more summers (shown in white), declined by 51%.

                     Next year we have both the solar flare maxima and el nino happening in the same year. This Arctic summer saw the greatest known decline in Arctic sea-ice for 10’s of thousands of years – and that was just in the leadup between these two heat generating events. This coming summer is likely to be even hotter, and there is less of the thicker multi-year ice to slow it down. I think he has good chance of being right.

                     You on the other hand show no signs of any intelligence. Just a sort of dumb animal stupidity with a lazy streak…
                   • mike e …

                     18 September 2012 at 10:03 am

                     SW picking holes in old data I don’t see you picking the same holes in climate change deniers lack of data.
                     NASA spends $13 billion a year on climate science.
                     Which is funded by the US corporates if they wanted an outcome fitting their agenda it would have evidence stacked up to look like what you deniers are saying!
                     You spend maybe 50 cents on broad band to find spurious arguments put up by the deniers!
                   • mike e …

                     18 September 2012 at 10:04 am

                     SW maybe you should sue NIWA like the other Luddites did!
                   • mike e …

                     18 September 2012 at 11:50 am

                     Silly wanker you have shot your self in the foot again you haven’t even read your own link not surprising!
                     The Arctic sea you idiot which has lost its ice cover for the first time in 20,000 years nothing to do with the north pole or as you intimate the Arctic Conveniently leaving out the the sea a separate geographical feature.
                     You are a liar!
                   • Macro …

                     18 September 2012 at 12:46 pm

                     Ooops Iprent – you beat me to it! I was going to reply along much the same lines. Oceanic heat flux is obviously way more than anyone ever imagined. Poor Steve is only concerned with point scoring – he has no idea what a scientific argument would look like even if he fell over one. That map of sea ice extent you displayed was the one I was going to link to as well. When you look at it and see just how much has gone from the median of just a decade ago – anyone, but those in complete denial such as our friend Steve, can only conclude that the end is not far away.
                 • Polish Pride …

                   18 September 2012 at 9:09 am

                   Now I have no real problem with that argument. If there’s a better solution that can be seen in nature that too should be looked at. I would be interested to see whether the studies that they have done took into account biodiverse principles and permaculture…. but lets run with your argument for a moment. How about a crop that has 97% usage of all materials is fast growing and adds nutrients to the soil and can possibly also be used for biofuel. Unfortunately it is currently illegal in most countries around the world.
                   The solutions in nature are not just limited to tree planting and photosynthesis. The solutions can cover the way we create energy. We currently use explosion and reactive methods for creating energy which as we all know are hugely inefficient. Nature on the uses implosion and passive methods to generate some of the most powerful forms of energy on earth. Unfortunately these are not being studied and have not for a long time. Probably not since Tesla and Viktor Scauberger. These too could provide energy solutions from nature that do not require the use of fossil fuels
           • Polish Pride 5.1.1.1.1.2

             17 September 2012 at 3:37 pm

             However if you do believe in ‘Man made Climate Change’ and you believe that ‘Man’ has the solution. Then look to nature for the solution. The problem is with nature so what have we changed from the original state that could be the problem.

             The problem isn’t with nature, it’s with the effects of massive industrial pollution on a self regualting system that can’t cope with it. Unless nature is going to magically conjure up a super-algae that gobbles greenhouse gasses nature is going to need all of the help it can get.

             Before you read the rest ‘Nature’ can and is coping with it just fine. It is man that needs to be worried. 🙂

             The problem is IN natures. The cause if you believe in Man made climate change is what man has done (although I think on this it is the same point just described differently).
             planet warming – nature
             Ice melting – nature
             changing weather patterns – nature
             You want to fix it look to nature for the solution – IE. how does nature deal with CO2 emissions. Its actually not that hard. They want you to think it is because that way they can justify the millions in scientific research and the billions that will come in as revenues from ETS worldwide.
             You have too much faith in your Government if you believe what they have told you around this.
             Again the solution is IN nature.
             Stop for a second and consider how arrogant mankind is to actually have the audacity to think that they can come up with a better solution than nature has for dealing with CO2 emissions…..

             At the risk of greatly oversimplifying it
             exponential population growth
             exponential growth of animals to feed the population through modern intensive farming methods
             Massive deforestation.

             Is this news to you? Duh.
             So common sense dictates reversing those problems that you can. One of those can easily be reversed for very little cost.

             IF you subscribe to man made climate change … embark on programmes to reforest the planet using principles of biodiversity. In other words replicate nature.
             If you think this is too simple then look at the simple science that comes with it and things will make sense.
             The reason this is not the solution is two fold

             And still insufficent – reforesting will still only deal with a certain amount of the carbon – emissions must be reduced if any moderation of teh effects of global warming is to be achieved. It’s not so much simple as patronising.

             It will be more than sufficient.
             …… This does not mean that we should not change behiviour and look for cleaner methods of doing things.

             1. it will fix the problem and there’s no longer a need for a tax.
             2. There’s no real way to make money from this solution.

             (1) It won’t fix the problem without major changes to the global economic system to allow it to work,
             (2) Who was suggesting making money off it? We’re trying to avoid global catastrophe. Your moneyless utopia isn’t simply going to come into being overnight of its own accord, so better to bring the polluters into line with the language they understand.

             Then clearly you haven’t listened to a word I have been saying. If you don’t think that ETS and other climate change taxation schemes have been put in place to further redistribute wealth for the benefit of a few whislt creating a ‘sellable’ solution that will never fix the problem and will enable the tax to continue indefinitely….. you are deluded.
             • Populuxe1 …

               17 September 2012 at 3:49 pm

               Jesus F. Christ!
               
               Before you read the rest ‘Nature’ can and is coping with it just fine. It is man that needs to be worried.
               The problem is IN natures. The cause if you believe in Man made climate change is what man has done (although I think on this it is the same point just described differently).
               planet warming – nature
               Ice melting – nature
               changing weather patterns – nature
               You want to fix it look to nature for the solution – IE. how does nature deal with CO2 emissions. Its actually not that hard. They want you to think it is because that way they can justify the millions in scientific research and the billions that will come in as revenues from ETS worldwide.
               You have too much faith in your Government if you believe what they have told you around this.
               Again the solution is IN nature.
               Stop for a second and consider how arrogant mankind is to actually have the audacity to think that they can come up with a better solution than nature has for dealing with CO2 emissions…..
               Wow, your obliviousness to the science is really begining to get annoying and it has very little to do what the government says. Especially as the Nats have only reluctantly come around to the idea that anthropomorphic climate change is real. If nature could cope with the vast and increasing amount of CO2 we’ve been pumping into the air by burning millions of years worth of carbon as fossil fuels, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. There wouldn’t be an issue.

               Then clearly you haven’t listened to a word I have been saying. If you don’t think that ETS and other climate change taxation schemes have been put in place to further redistribute wealth for the benefit of a few whislt creating a ‘sellable’ solution that will never fix the problem and will enable the tax to continue indefinitely….. you are deluded.

               Deluded? I’m not the one talking crap on this particular issue.
               • Polish Pride …

                 17 September 2012 at 4:01 pm

                 Populuxe – I don’t think you understood what I said

                 explain how it is that ‘Nature’ isn’t coping…… This should be good, I’ll get some popcorn.

                 See Populuxe under Man made climate change… if we continue and don’t change the way we do things… We won’t survive. We will be wiped from the face of the earth. So it is US i.e. man that has the problem
                 Nature on the other hand will still be here. It will still rain, the sun will still shine, tornadoes earthquakes, snow, hail etc. etc. i.e. nature yep that’ll continue
                 • Populuxe1 …

                   17 September 2012 at 4:08 pm

                   Oh I expect some living things will adapt, but you seem to have a remarkably rosy view of mass extictions of whole ecologies.
                   • Polish pride …

                     17 September 2012 at 5:44 pm

                     Perhaps you should google the term limnic eruption
           • Polish Pride 5.1.1.1.1.3

             17 September 2012 at 3:52 pm

             Couldn’t find the Nasa one but
             http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/04/is-nasa-really-in-an-open-revolt-over-climate-change/
             this should indicate it was said.
             • Populuxe1 …

               17 September 2012 at 4:15 pm

               Oh well of course! Someone’s non-peer reviewed BLOG, by someone whose academic credentials are not listed! How foolish of me to have ever doubted!
               • Polish pride …

                 17 September 2012 at 4:24 pm

                 Did you actually bother reading it. Effectively said two things one that supported your original assertion in a round about sort of way.
                 • Populuxe1 …

                   17 September 2012 at 4:27 pm

                   Half a page doesn’t really take that long to read, and perhaps that support should be telling you something.
                   • Polish pride …

                     17 September 2012 at 4:36 pm

                     It has actually – if you took a step back for a second you would see why people have come up with the argument I did citing NASA. You might even bookmark it for later use….
       • Polish Pride 5.1.1.2

         17 September 2012 at 2:39 pm

         Populuxe – first I don’t believe it is possible to recalibrate, These changes are happening with the sun and on other planets in our solar system according to Nasa.
         However if you do believe in ‘Man made Climate Change’ and you believe that ‘Man’ has the solution. Then look to nature for the solution. The problem is with nature so what have we changed from the original state that could be the problem.
         At the risk of greatly oversimplifying it
         exponential population growth
         exponential growth of animals to feed the population through modern intensive farming methods
         Massive deforestation.
         IF you subscribe to man made climate change … embark on programmes to reforest the planet using principles of biodiversity. In other words replicate nature.
         If you think this is too simple then look at the simple science that comes with it and things will make sense.
         The reason this is not the implemented solution is two fold
         1. it will fix the problem and there’s no longer a need for a tax.
         2. There’s no real way to make money from this solution.

         Nature holds the solution to many problems. Man only needs to observe or look for the way nature does things and replicate its methods in design
         • Clashman 5.1.1.2.1

           17 September 2012 at 2:53 pm

           Ahem, “These changes are happening with the sun and on other planets in our solar system according to Nasa.”
           So if its humans causing it here, whats the cause on these other planets then?
           • Polish Pride 5.1.1.2.1.1

             17 September 2012 at 3:01 pm

             Hence further down in my post I say IF in capitals as in IF you believe in man made climate change….. I do think that there are significant benefits on restoring Ecosystems and essentially reforresting the world though. I also subscribe to more sustainable ways of doing things at all levels of society. 🙂
           • Populuxe1 5.1.1.2.1.2

             17 September 2012 at 3:27 pm

             As Giorgio Tsoukalos would no doubt say, “Aliens”! 😀
           • Kotahi Tāne Huna 5.1.1.2.1.3

             17 September 2012 at 3:32 pm

             Clashman, Duh, I dunno? What do the people who study those planets say? Did your mummy ban you from Google or something?
             • Populuxe1 …

               17 September 2012 at 3:53 pm

               I believe the reference is to the highly dubious theory that climate change is caused by terrestrial axial wobbles induced by the gravitational harmonics of Jupiter and Saturn. It’s a crackpot theory with very dodgy “science” behind it – especially as in order to affect that kind of change to the Earth’s axis such as would drastically alter our climate would require a body the size of the moon to pretty much glance off us, and fucking us all.
             • Clashman …

               17 September 2012 at 4:06 pm

               Ooh, a cutting remark Kotahi how will I ever recover from that? Never heard the term “rhetorical” I take it?
               • Kotahi Tāne Huna …

                 17 September 2012 at 4:19 pm

                 Point taken. Sarcasm rarely survives transcription.
         • lprent 5.1.1.2.2

           17 September 2012 at 3:20 pm

           IF you subscribe to man made climate change … embark on programmes to reforest the planet using principles of biodiversity. In other words replicate nature.

           Literally millions of years of excess carbon was fossilised and is now being burnt and released into the atmosphere and oceans as CO2. So somehow going and planting a forests over a few years is going to do what? Sweet fuck all…

           It has absolutely no chance to fix that level of atmospheric carbon using biological means. Even if we planted the entire world land area in the fastest growing woods that we could find, it’d be unable to suck up more than a small fraction of the yearly emissions that we’re burning from the fossil beds. And in any case forests will eventually emit that carbon again within very short time frames, so all you have done is move the problem a generation or two.

           Tell me – are you really naturally that thick scientifically? Or did you have to practice? However learning some basic maths might help alleviate the stupidity and make you look like less of dork.
           • Polish Pride 5.1.1.2.2.1

             17 September 2012 at 4:05 pm

             No Iprent I study nature and there are many things ‘Science’ does not yet understand but it does enable people like yourself to think they know it all because they can pull some scientific numbers. Its a good thing science has never been proven wrong on anything …..no wait….. 🙂
             • Colonial Viper …

               17 September 2012 at 4:10 pm

               lprent is simply talking about a carbon mass balance. The US burning 20M barrels of oil per day…that’s a lot of forests which need to be planted to balance that out.
             • Populuxe1 …

               17 September 2012 at 4:17 pm

               So which is it then?

               (1) Aliens
               (2) Magic (fairies)
               (3) God told you
               • Polish pride …

                 17 September 2012 at 4:45 pm

                 Wouldn’t want to do anything to crush your illusion that we are the only intelligent life in this vaste universe eh populuxe 🙂
                 • Populuxe1 …

                   17 September 2012 at 4:58 pm

                   I would suspect that beings capable of crossing interstellar distances would have better things to do than talk to idiots who don’t understand the principles of scientific methodology – I can’t speak for the fairies.
                   • Polish pride …

                     17 September 2012 at 5:39 pm

                     Oh I understand the principles of science very well. I can grasp something that you haven’t 1. Science can be wrong.
                     2. There can be two opposing and co-existing scientific views at the same time.
                     3. A scientific view like everything else in this system can be corrupted by money.

                     See there is no monetary motive in the solution I gave which has also had scientific backing. The same can’t necessarily be said for yours though. Whenever something smells – follow the money
                   • blue leopard …

                     17 September 2012 at 5:48 pm

                     Yes PP,

                     If scientists held the view that they knew it all, there would be no more discoveries!

                     Appears there are some scientists who share your concern about the way money is effecting their discipline:

                     http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/how-corporations-corrupt-science.html
                   • Populuxe1 …

                     17 September 2012 at 6:03 pm

                     1. Science can be wrong.
                     2. There can be two opposing and co-existing scientific views at the same time.
                     3. A scientific view like everything else in this system can be corrupted by money.
                     1. Science never claims to be right or wrong, it merely creates hypotheses based on observable and testable phenomena.
                     2. The majority of scientists, nay, the consensus, is that global warming is anthropogenic. Much like evolution and gravity, we can safely assume it fact.
                     3. Hmmm. How do you make money by agreeing with the scientific consensus when it goes against the interests of teh people with the money – ie, the corporations?
                     See there is no monetary motive in the solution I gave which has also had scientific backing. The same can’t necessarily be said for yours though. Whenever something smells – follow the money
                     Again, there is very little money to be made in supporting a generally accepted consensus. The real money is to be made in climate change denial, cosying up to Big Industry. I think you’ll find that reforesting on the kind of scale you’re talking about will require quite a lot of that money you are smelling.
                   • blue leopard …

                     17 September 2012 at 6:19 pm

                     Populuxe1

                     Cap-and-trade tax creates a whole new speculative market; I hope that the carbon tax you were referring to above is not that form, or else there could well be big money interests on both sides of the argument 1. Anti climate change: In the form of the oil industry and 2. Pro ETS: In the form of our well behaved and infinitely moral and considerate financial traders
             • lprent …

               17 September 2012 at 4:19 pm

               Science is always “wrong”. That is because it is a matter of process rather than some kind of faith. Which is what I consider a blind unthinking belief in “nature” to be. The scientific method is to keep questioning things and to tear previous theories apart to replace them whenever a hole is found. For some strange reason that kind of structural scepticism keeps the science community overturning previous scientific theories because that is what it is designed to do.

               Your stupid and shallow dismissal of that process shows more about your lack of understanding of the process than it does of anything else. Your touching faith has bugger all to do with “nature” – which is constrained by that nasty thing called reality. It has more to do with someone not using their brain and spending their time engaging in some kind of wishful thinking alternate universe.

               And it is dead boring because the usual response to any attempt to refute is to simply ignore anything that other say while repeating one of more mantra to hold away that nasty real world. In fact – what you just did…. I kind of get the impression that the world has been kind of terrifying you ever since you left the womb..
               • Polish pride …

                 17 September 2012 at 4:29 pm

                 No faith involved just the ability to understand science doesn’t have all the answers…. Or perhaps does after all the solution that will fix it can be found in science.
               • Polish pride …

                 17 September 2012 at 4:51 pm

                 Hmmmm interesting read my comment 10 times and it never said science was wrong Iprent…… Or was that a conversation you had in your head.
                 But to be clear yes I believe your version of science is wrong on this. There are science to back up my view on this. Lucky me its also backed up by what happens in nature. You know that thing that science often tries to learn about. Pity it doesn’t learn from it more often. If it did we probably wouldn’t be in this mess.
           • Polish pride 5.1.1.2.2.2

             17 September 2012 at 4:40 pm

             Of course your about to post a scientific study to say reforestation will have no effect. I of course will then post one to say that it will …. 🙂 and we are back to you pinning your hopes on a never ending tax to solve the problem…
           • Polish pride 5.1.1.2.2.3

             17 September 2012 at 5:21 pm

             Iq117 so must have. Been all the practice.
             I will assume you understand the concept of a carbon sink in forestry . Set it up right and it will last much longer than a few generations.
             See iprent the difference is and I am sure you will love this. I realised a long time ago it’s the times when you think you know everything that life turns around and shows you how much there is still to learn. The problem with ‘science’ types such as yourself is that all too often you think you know everything and will therefore never learn that valuable lesson. There are countless examples of science staunchly saying something doesn’t or can’t exist simply because it hasn’t found a way to explain it. Science like many other things in the system has in my view been corrupted. And it is all down to the money. It always is. For that reason I also like to apply logic and common sense to a scientific argument to help test it’s validity. Maybe your theory is right. But I am sure you’re aware that the oceans too are massive CO2 stores. Have they reached their capacity? We don’t know. Now unfortunately for you I am not just a keyboard warrior on this particular topic 🙂
         • Macro 5.1.1.2.3

           17 September 2012 at 8:17 pm

           “These changes are happening with the sun and on other planets in our solar system according to Nasa.”
           utter bullshit!
           Solar irradiance changes cause about 0.18 deg C fluctuation over an 11 year cycle. We are currently at a solar maximum and in the next 5 years there will be a slight decline which will then increase again from around 2017 to a new maximum in 2023.
           http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-cycles-global-warming.htm
6. Steve Wrathall 6

   17 September 2012 at 12:49 pm

   As your mate Al Gore is comimg soon, does anyone plan to ask him the identity of these mystery isles that he claims are being evacuated due to AGW?

   “[T]hat’s why the citizens of these Pacific nations have all had to evacuate to New Zealand.” -Gore, -An Inconvenient Truth (2006)
   • Kotahi Tāne Huna 6.1

     17 September 2012 at 1:00 pm

     Earth to Wrathall – Al Gore is a politician and author. Not a scientist, still less a Climatologist. Debunking anything he says is therefore pointless so pointless there should be a word for it. I suggest a new definition.

     wrathall – a strenuous objection to an irrelevance.
   • Te Reo Putake 6.2

     17 September 2012 at 1:11 pm

     Steve, rising sea levels are threatening islands all around the Pacific. I’m really surprised you haven’t heard of this, as it’s been raised as an issue for two decades, is regularly featured in the media and is reaching crisis proportions in Kiribati right now.
     • mike e 6.2.1

       17 September 2012 at 1:22 pm

       Not to mention NZ,All up the east coast of NEW Zealand the coastline is receding and local councils are spending more and more on mitigation!
       Not to mention we have had most of the hottest years on record since 1997!
       Europe North America sub Saharan Africa and a large portion of Russia are all in drought!
       The southern hemisphere hasn’t had its summer yet so watch out.
       La Nina is already on the rise mainly easterly type winds when we normally get southerlies.
       • Steve Wrathall 6.2.1.1

         17 September 2012 at 1:50 pm

         “…the coastline is receding and local councils are spending more and more on mitigation!”

         NZ’ coastline has always been dynamic. This does not disprove the global satellite data that only shows 3 mm/year global sea level rise. But yes, local bureuacrats are using AGW alarmism to restrict coastal development = higher land costs = owning a home even further out of reach of the average Kiwi family.

         “…hottest years on record since 1997!”

         So? Accurate measurements started during the Little Ice Age in the 19th century, and there’s been a gentle, and mostly beneficial warming since.

         “Europe North America sub Saharan Africa and a large portion of Russia are all in drought!”

         Yes. There is always somewhere in the world in drought, somewhere in flood, somewhere under snow, etc etc. Your point being…?

         “La Nina is already on the rise…”

         Yes, a natural oscillation. You really are scratching the bottom of the barrel to try to keep AGW alive aren’t you? Is it any wonder that the world now considers GW lower in priority to Kardasian’s boob job?
         • Colonial Viper 6.2.1.1.1

           17 September 2012 at 2:55 pm

           NZ’ coastline has always been dinimic.

           fify
         • Kotahi Tāne Huna 6.2.1.1.2

           17 September 2012 at 3:09 pm

           Scratching the bottom of the barrel, Wrathall?

           Hardly – the warming you agree is occurring is doing so because of the release of anthropogenic CO2 etc. into the atmosphere: this has been the explanation (based on Physics) of the observed warming since Arrhenius in 1896.

           No change in the story, no equivocation.

           If you think it’s being driven by something else then the onus is on you to say what, and submit your “findings” to an appropriate journal for peer review.

           All your wrathall means fuck all.
         • blue leopard 6.2.1.1.3

           17 September 2012 at 5:04 pm

           Steve Wrathall

           “But yes, local bureuacrats are using AGW alarmism to restrict coastal development = higher land costs = owning a home even further out of reach of the average Kiwi family.”

           For your information:

           Building too close to the coast=panic when natural storm events happen=desire for hard engineering solutions=more damage in storms=more demand for hard engineering solutions =more and more money

           >>Whole process involves costs to you the rate payer and is avoidable situation.

           Building further from the coast=none of the above problems

           >>Saves you the rate payer money (and heartache).
         • mike e 6.2.1.1.4

           18 September 2012 at 11:23 am

           The areas in drought make up are fairly substantial an not isolated parts as you suggest idiot!
           These areas are also the worlds largest food producing arable lands oh yes a large parts of china are in drought as well!
           Thats your lame stream media for you Kardasians boobs are going to feed an over populated starving world in your wet dreams SW.
           You get the booby prized idiot award for being a tool sorry trool
         • mike e 6.2.1.1.5

           18 September 2012 at 11:31 am

           Councils on the East coast of NZ are having to find large sums of money because of sea level rise in the last ten years !
           Thats not fantasy as you patheticly portray ,fox news would do a better job of that because now in the US they have to tell the truth as Fox news has been caught lying a lot recently and had to back track thats why Romney and his sheep are loosing the election.
           If a broadcaster tells lies now the are brought to heel by the media watchdog.
     • Steve Wrathall 6.2.2

       17 September 2012 at 1:40 pm

       Yes, it is regularly featured in the media. And it’s crap.
       “For years, people have warned that the smallest nations on the planet – island states that barely rise out of the ocean – face being wiped off the map by rising sea levels. Now the first analysis of the data broadly suggests the opposite: most have remained stable over the last 60 years, while some have even grown. http://banabanvoice.ning.com/profiles/blogs/shapeshifting-islands-defy

       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xclydZ8oKQo
       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCzbcQwj6Mw&feature=relmfu
       http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_9ROoBcp80&feature=relmfu
       
       • Te Reo Putake 6.2.2.1

         17 September 2012 at 1:46 pm

         Oh, dear. Is your denial of the problem just ignorance, Steve, or do you simply wish brown skinned Pacific people would hurry up and drown? Either way, you seem to be a real saddo.
         • Steve Wrathall 6.2.2.1.1

           17 September 2012 at 3:49 pm

           Ah yes, the obligatory racist slur. Good news. Your Pacific brothers are in no danger of drowning. Relentless media cherry-picking of normal flooding and King Tide events does not change this.
           • Te Reo Putake 6.2.2.1.1.1

             17 September 2012 at 6:26 pm

             Good news for Pasifika people! A condescending western would be authority figure doesn’t care about a threat to a way of life that has existed for centuries and belittles the evidence and opinions of those under threat. I’m pretty sure that’s never happened before 🙄
              
             • Steve Wrathall …

               17 September 2012 at 10:11 pm

               What “evidence”? As I’ve already outlined. Sea levels are only rising at 3 mm/year, and surveys of Pacific islands show no decrease in area over the last 60 years. Any coral island geology textbook will also explain how they are dynamic landforms that can grow and adjust to even rapid sea-level rise. There is even a scientific term :keep-up islands.
               • RedLogix …

                 17 September 2012 at 10:34 pm

                 So sea-level is a pretty constant and stable thing then steve? Can’t possibly change much eh?

                 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater_pulse_1A
       • Kotahi Tāne Huna 6.2.2.2

         17 September 2012 at 1:49 pm

         The first link points out that “…warnings about rising sea levels must still be taken seriously. Earlier this year, people living on the low-lying Carteret Islands, part of Papua New Guinea, had to relocate. Kench says anecdotal reports that the islands have been submerged are “incorrect”, saying that instead erosion has changed the shape of the islands, forcing people to move.”

         A wrathall indeed.
         • Steve Wrathall 6.2.2.2.1

           17 September 2012 at 3:53 pm

           Of Course. Even researchers whose evidence rebuts the alarmist narrative, have to nonetheless twang a few chords from the warmist songbook if they want the next research grant.
           • Kotahi Tāne Huna 6.2.2.2.1.1

             17 September 2012 at 4:11 pm

             Ah, a conspiracy to go with your wrathall.
           • Colonial Viper 6.2.2.2.1.2

             17 September 2012 at 8:18 pm

             It’s only an alarmist narrative if the ship isn’t going down mate.

             Or are you one of those who preferred to stay at the bar of the Titanic drinking cocktails?
           • mike e 6.2.2.2.1.3

             18 September 2012 at 9:54 am

             SW 99% of all scientific research on global warming is wrong!
             The area in drought in the northern hemisphere is unprecedented!
             Artic ice melt is not occurring!
             You are are science Luddite!
             a lightweight political lackey!
             You should bury your head in the sand if its not already their.
           • mike e 6.2.2.2.1.4

             18 September 2012 at 11:15 am

             SW You would think the oil companies with their vast resources would put up a better argument but recently have changed their tune unfortunately for you SW.
             They have admitted that they have been putting up spurious arguments but now are believers in climate science.
7. Fortran 7

   17 September 2012 at 2:33 pm

   Climate change has made Gore a very very rich man.
   • Kotahi Tāne Huna 7.1

     17 September 2012 at 3:23 pm

     Really? The last I heard this was a baseless zombie lie. Would you care to cite a source for your wrathall?

     Meanwhile, in the real world, massive losses directly attributed to AGW.
     • Populuxe1 7.1.1

       17 September 2012 at 3:30 pm

       Newsflash – Gore was already a very very rich man. The Gore family is one of the great patrician clans of North America.
8. captain hook 8

   17 September 2012 at 2:47 pm

   so all the knuckleheads with plastic replica hotrods and hardly davisons have been let out for the day?
9. blue leopard 9

   17 September 2012 at 2:49 pm

   There are HUGE problems being created by the financial futures markets right now.

   In what way would adding another speculative market such as ETS not create more of the same problems?

   http://www.tni.org//archives/act/16161

   http://climateandcapitalism.com/2011/10/17/carbon-trading-speculation-by-design/

   http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Carbon_emissions_trading
   • Colonial Viper 9.1

     17 September 2012 at 2:54 pm

     This is what we get from politicians being advised by investment bankers on “market solutions” to these issues. Notice how *none* of the recommended solutions involve consuming less material resources or using less energy?

     50 years of US presidents have declared that America needs to become more independent of oil. LOL. In the next 50 years its happening, regardless of whether they intend to or not.
     • blue leopard 9.1.1

       17 September 2012 at 4:04 pm

       CV

       Yes, thats my suspicion too

       I don’t see a lot of debate going on about the merits of this scheme, rather now it solely appears to be framed in an “either-ETS-or-you-must-be-a-supporter-or-pollution” type of dialogue.

       …Perhaps its a rare type of intelligence to acknowledge that if such an approach (leaving it to the market) has failed monumentally in one area then it might very well do so again in another…

       I watched a great interview on SBS discussing the pros and cons of cap-and-trade vs a straight tax.

       It was great when we had channels that introduced us to the very real debates involved in the issues that face us. I miss these channels.
10. Polish Pride 10

    17 September 2012 at 2:55 pm

    Ummm yeah sorry about the triple post fellas ..
11. Carol 11

    17 September 2012 at 5:08 pm

    Hmmm… don’t know what to make of this – sincere campaign or self-(and brand) promotion by well-known fashion designer?

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/fashion/7691964/Stop-shopping-Westwood-pleads

    Dame Vivienne Westwood strode down the catwalk dressed as a fashion guerilla, wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with ‘Climate Revolution’ and a drawn-on black eye. Westwood later told reporters she didn’t want anyone to buy her clothes and that she was only interested in using fashion to air her views.

    That proactive approach included handing out T-shirts bearing her photo and the slogan “I’m Julian Assange” to models and celebrities in the front row.

    So that’s 2 issues in one appearance…. and they are related…. how?
12. RedLogix 12

    17 September 2012 at 8:04 pm

    Fossil carbon. Tax the crap out of it. Only solution that might work.

    If that fails …. we will resort to executing the burners.
    • Steve Wrathall 12.1

      17 September 2012 at 10:04 pm

      Govt beat you to it
      • RedLogix 12.1.1

        17 September 2012 at 10:18 pm

        Govt implemented a piss useless trading scheme instead of a proper tax.

        Making the second nightmare outcome all the more probable.
      • Macro 12.1.2

        17 September 2012 at 10:24 pm

        You see Steve you actually know F*** All about this topic – so go away!
        We would have had a carbon tax – but National MP Shane Ardern drove his tractor up Parliament steps. 🙁 Idiot!
        http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3521866
        So now we don’t.
13. BLiP 13

    18 September 2012 at 1:06 am

    .

    Since its election to government, National Ltd™:

    has been caught out repeatedly lying in the run up to and during the election campaign about its real intentions in relation to the environment

    celebrated the opening of the foreign-owned Pike River Coal Ltd mine on DOC land adjacent to the Paparoa National Park from which 1 megatonne of coal will be extracted per year for the next 20 years – Pike River Coal Ltd has announced that it has found additional coal in the national park

    removed a proposed efficiency standard (MEPS) on incandescent lightbulbs

    reversed a moratorium on building new gas/oil/coal power stations

    removed the bio fuel subsidy

    scrapped the scheme that would have penalised imported vehicles producing high emissions

    removed regulations for water efficient new housing

    renewed leases on sensitive high country farms which were meant to return to DOC

    reversed restrictions on the freeholding of vast swathes of land on the edge of the Southern Lakes

    arbitrarily excised 400 hectares from the brand new Oteake Conservation Park, including the most important and, ecologically, the rarest part of the new Park, the tussock and shrubland that went right down to the banks of the Manuherikia River, to enable future access to lignite

    said nothing to say in regard to the World Commission on Protected areas of IUCN’s severe criticism of its intention to investigate mineral resources and mining opportunities in protected conservation areas including our three UNESCO World Heritage Sites of Te Wahi Pounamu-South West New Zealand, Tongariro National Park and the Sub Antarctic Islands

    approved two prospecting permit applications lodged by Australian iron-ore giant Fortescue Metals Group subsidiary FMG Pacific lodged in June – areas covered by the two-year permits include an 8204-square-kilometre area of seabed adjoining the west coast from Cape Reinga to the Manukau Harbour and a 3798-square-kilometre prospecting area of land from Cape Reinga to the Kaipara Harbour including Ninety Mile Beach, the west side of the Aupouri Peninsula, Kaitaia and the Hokianga.

    approved an additional prospecting permit for Fortesque Metals in relation to 3568sq km right next door to the Kahurangi National Park where the Heaphy Track is

    was forced to release its Ministry of Economic Development (MED) report under the Official Information Act that proclaims “significant mineral potential” in the Fiordland, Kahurangi and Paparoa national parks – the report said the Waitutu area of the Fiordland National Park had sufficient petroleum reserves to be “worthy” of inclusion in a review of conservation land protected from mining

    secretly granted the minerals industry the right to veto proposed National Park boundaries and permission for any such vetoes to be kept confidential – in spite of recommendations from its own officials against any such a veto

    Minster of Conservation Tim Grosser, on 29 August 2009, called for caring New Zealanders to halt their “emotional hysteria” and recognise that conservation land should be mined for minerals and went on to say “Mining in a modern, technological way can have a negligible effect”

    Associate Minister of Conservation Kate Wilkinson, in an interview in “Canterbury Farming” rubished her own department, DOC, suggesting it was incapable of looking after the high country reserves and parks under its control

    gutted the home insulation scheme

    pulled $300 million out of public transport, walking and cycling schemes and added it to a pot of $2 billion to ‘upgrade’ state highways

    changed the law to provide billions of dollar in subsidies for polluters via the ETS casino which is now a target for scamming by international criminals

    begun a process of gutting the Resource Management Act to make it difficult/impossible for the public to lodge appeals against developers

    removed the ability of Auckland to introduce a fuel levy to fund planned public transport upgrades

    left electrification of the national rail network up in the air without promised funding commitments

    removed the Ministry for the Environment’s programme to make Government Departments ‘carbon neutral’

    removed funding for public tv advertising on sustainability and energy efficiency

    pulled funding for small-town public litter bin recycling schemes

    cabinet ministers expressing public support the bulldozing of Fiordland

    reduced Department of Conservation funding by about $50 million over three years

    canceled funding for the internationally acclaimed ‘Enviroschools’ programme

    usurped the democratic role of local Councils of determining policies for their citizens by requiring the abandonment of the efficient and well-established tree protection rules for urban areas

    set about revamping Auckland governance in a way that is likely to greatly reduce the ‘Environmental Watchdog’ role of the the current Regional Council

    removed Auckland’s metropolitan limits and opened the gateway for unfettered urban sprawl

    defended internationally the importation of rain-forest-wrecking palm kernel and stood silent while Federated Farmers called Greenpeace “terrorists”

    stood silent while Godfrey Bloom, a Member of the European Parliament and infamous Climate Change Denialist, publicly rejoiced in the 1985 bombing of the Greenpeace Rainbow Warrior – who was doing so while standing on a dock next to the replacement vessel

    took a 0% emissions reduction target to Copenhagen. Yes, seriously, that isn’t a misprint – that was the lower bound of their negotiation platform – then missed the 01/02/10 deadline for commitment to action it had agreed to – meanwhile 55 of the 80 countries which attended did make the deadline

    secretly cancelled the internationally recognised scheme for the mandatory labelling of exotic woods to ensure the timber has not been taken from rain forests in direct contradiction of its own statements made at the 13th World Forestry Congress in Argentina

    supported the Department of Conservation’s decision to open up the pristine Cathedral Cove to an ice-cream franchise

    given the Department of Conservsation $1.7 million to further develop commercial activities on DOC land and started an “off set” plan allowing company’s to damage the conservation estate if they agree to improve land elsewhere – no monitoring regime has been suggested on put in place

    left DOC director-general Al Morrison to announce that DOC is to charge for services that had been free and, to soften the public up to the idea that there will be more “energy generation schemes” operating on DOC land

    taken no action to reduce existing pollution pouring into the Manawatu River and is “leaving it up to industry” to come up with solutions to heal the river which was described by the Cawthorn Institute as “one of the worst polluted in the Western world”

    announced a $1.1 million industry subsidy to kick start marine farming without identifying no-go areas nor putting in place a consultation process for individiuals, communities, and other general coastal users

    blamed New Zealanders after a Japanese whaling ship deliberately smashed into a smaller, more vulnerable craft in the open sea

    was forced to release documents under the Official Information Act which confirm that DOC has “giving up” on ecologically valuable high-country land in the Mackenzie Basin because of funding cuts. The released documents cite “statements made by ministers”, “diminishing funding” and the Government’s new high-country policies as reasons for the changed stance – the comments from DOC were made after Land Information New Zealand (Linz), which manages the tenure review process, ignored DOC’s previous conservation recommendations for the farms

    used former National Party minister and current director of Open Country Cheese – a company convicted of filthy farming practices – Wyatt Creech to head up an enquiry into Environment Canterbury which had been standing up the dairy farmers’ demands for more and more water resources and less and less regulation. The Creech report recommended the Environmental Canterbury be sacked and replaced with government appointments and the voters of Canterbury do without democracy until the water situation had been resolved. The Canterbury area holds 50 percent of New Zealand’s fresh water reserves and 50 percent of the water required for hyrdo energy. The Creech report said Environmental Centerbury put too much focus on the environment.

    Despite international condemnation for knowing next to nothing about the parlous state of the New Zealand fisheries, National Ltd™ bucks international trends, pours more acid on the 100% Pure brand and increases the bluefin tuna quota.

    New Zealand is subject to international criticism for its backing of commericial whaling which National Ltd supports

    Government-owned company Solid Energy runs an essay competition entitled “The role of coal in sustainable energy solutions for New Zealand” for school children. First prize is a trip to New Zealand’s largest coal customer, China.

    Supported access fees for entrance onto DOC walkways – fee introduced following cuts to DOC’s budget.

    New Zealand’s environment would profit from mining national parks, Conservation Minister Kate Wilkinson says.

    Department of Conservation director-general Al Morrison said the conservation estate created “opportunities to do a whole lot for a lot of different people”.
    “We’ve got to get away from this idea that somehow we have to protect one-third of New Zealand for a certain constituency and put it in a jar of formaldehyde and leave it.”

    State coal miner Solid Energy could get an extra slice of the action if highly sensitive conservation land is opened to gold, silver and other prospecting.
    Energy and Resources Minister Gerry Brownlee said Solid Energy’s work could be widened to include other minerals and resources, or it could form part of a new state-owned enterprise to maximise government returns from any mining.
    He did not rule out the company, which produces 80 per cent of New Zealand’s coal, having a role in mining gold and other minerals on Great Barrier Island and other conservation areas being eyed by the Government http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/3519703/Golden-possibility-for-state-coal-miner

    http://www.maf.govt.nz/mafnet/press/2010/180310-dairy-clean-streams.htm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3556402/Letter-pointed-to-Carter-conflict

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10647161

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10648408

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10654369

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2010/06/28/12480acb875c

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3972851/Government-may-reduce-local-authorities-powers

    http://forum.forestandbird.org.nz/topic/government-attacks-on-nature-conservation

    source for most of stuff in relation to national parks

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/2947054/Nats-new-green-leaf-withering-on-the-branch/

    National Lied during the election about its intentions in regard to the environment

    “National will have policies that reflect the fact that living on a diet of carbon will be increasingly bad – bad for the world and bad for our economy. We will have policy that encourages ‘climate friendly’ choices like windmills, hydro power and tree planting, and reduces the desire for ‘climate unfriendly’ behaviours, like burning coal,” Mr Key promised in May 2007.

    “National will provide Kiwis with good signals about the cars that are the best for the environment. We will do this by ensuring our emission and noise standards for new vehicles keep up with international standards and practices and by introducing more sophisticated emissions and noise testing for existing vehicles. If Kiwis have a highly polluting or excessively noisy car, we think they should know about it and have an incentive to do something about it.”

    “National proudly shares many of your values: like you, we want to protect our unique native species. We want our children and grandchildren to be able to swim in our rivers and lakes. We believe in sound environmental science. We are committed to high environmental standards.”

    http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=-42.172703,171.89378&z=13&t=h&hl=en

    If you want to check out the latest “keyhole surgery” zero in on the ridge south & slightly east of Reefton on Google Earth and you’ll see Oceana Golds brand new high tech gold mine.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/MandyH111#p/a/u/0/wokmHp2nx6M

    video talking about dairy farming in the McKenzie

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/4173795/Dairy-boss-in-calving-strife

    Up to 200 calves were induced on Fonterra chairman Sir Henry van der Heyden’s Putaruru farms this calving season in a controversial practice to lift milk production.
    The practice, which Sir Henry has not denied, has prompted claims of hypocrisy, as Fonterra says it doesn’t support inductions, and even a call for Sir Henry to stand down while the matter is investigated.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4376344/Mining-disaster-delays-lignite-report

    Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Jan Wright’s report, “Lignite and climate change: The high cost of low grade coal” was meant to be released at midday today.
    The report tackles the climate change ramifications of plans by two companies, state-owned miner Solid Energy and L&M Group, to mine lignite in Otago and Southland and convert it to diesel.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4399914/Environmental-fund-irks-Greens

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/ministry-for-the-environment/news/article.cfm?o_id=116&objectid=10686869

    a third of new zealand lakes have poor water quality

    Dr Norman was sceptical of the reasons why the release of the report was delayed. It was to be released last week.
    “It is interesting timing that the report’s release was delayed during the World Dairy Summit in Auckland, when the report concludes that pastoral land use is associated with the ecological deterio

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/ministry-for-the-environment/news/article.cfm?o_id=116&objectid=10670507

    New Zealand’s main centres have the worst air in Australasia and Auckland is the most polluted with twice the concentration of damaging airborne particles as Sydney, the World Health Organisation says.
    But Environment Minister Nick Smith yesterday challenged the accuracy of the WHO figures
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/pollution/news/article.cfm?c_id=281&objectid=10754865

    plastic packaging

    37689 (2010). Brendon Burns to the Minister of Health (09 Dec 2010): Has he received any advice on the current quality of drinking water in Reidston; if so, what, if any, actions will he be taking concerning that advice?
    Hon Tony Ryall (Minister of Health) replied: Reply due: 17 Dec 2010

    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Business/QWA/2/5/6/QWA_37689_2010-37689-2010-Brendon-Burns-to-the-Minister-of-Health.htm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10694471

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10694625

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10697056

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4512779/Hundreds-of-snapper-wash-up-on-beaches

    http://www.aucklandtrains.co.nz/2011/01/19/report-slams-official-waterview-claims/

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/67317/govt-to-formalise-reduction-in-greenhouse-gases

    http://www.straterra.co.nz/Media%20Releases/2009/Oct#Air%20quality

    http://blog.greens.org.nz/2011/01/18/rubbing-salt-water-in-the-wounds/

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10720250

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10737766

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10737633

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/5268508/Climate-change-blamed-for-jellyfish-explosion

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5631048/Slow-down-ETS-implementation-report

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Key-keeps-meeting-with-Anadarko-boss-quiet/tabid/370/articleID/233099/Default.aspx

    secret meeting with boss of company responsible for massive oil spill and which wants to drill offshore New Zealand
    http://www.boprc.govt.nz/news-centre/media-releases/november-2011/dairy-compliance-falling-on-deaf-ears/
    Bay of Plenty Regional Council is concerned the importance of environmental compliance is falling on deaf ears for a portion of the farming community. This follows three cases heard in the Tauranga District Court yesterday relating to pollution reaching waterways.

    http://blog.greens.org.nz/2011/11/10/dams-will-damn-our-rivers/

    Fed Farmers have welcomed National’s $400 million water storage and irrigation investment announced yesterday.
    Of course Fed Farmers would. Damming rivers to store water for irrigation means farmers can convert more land to dairying, which is highly profitable at the moment.
    But Fed Farmers pretend that damming rivers to store water for irrigation won’t hurt the environment.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/news/4580805/Dam-blamed-for-river-ruin

    Fisherman Ray Brokenshire fears it will be too late in five years to save the Opihi River from the effects of degradation.
    The Temuka man is involved in plans to create an Opihi River group and wants concerned people to contact him to discuss river issues, including problems caused by the toxic algae phormidium.
    “A lot of us at our age remember what it was like. What we are trying to say is it’s in an awful state.”
    An Environment Canterbury (ECan) warning remains in place cautioning people to avoid the river at State Highway 1 because of the risk of exposure to toxins from phormidium, and some anglers will no longer fish in the river because they say the fish are smelly and inedible.
    As of yesterday an ECan warning was also in place at Waipopo. A warning at the Saleyards Bridge has been removed.
    Some South Canterbury anglers have blamed the growth in phormidium on a design feature of the Opuha Dam.
    Barry Stone told the Timaru Herald last week the algae increase was a result of how the dam company took its water, which was by a single-take and not a multiple-take system.
    http://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/rma_consent_process_perspective_from_waikato_regional_council_0.pdf

    Government statements re: RMA delays are flat out bullshit

    http://blog.greens.org.nz/2011/10/30/uranium-yellowcake-in-nuclear-free-new-zealand-ports/

    National Plays down risks of yellow cake shopments passing through New Zealand waters

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6100372/Warning-over-DOC-cuts

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10771535

    http://thestandard.org.nz/they-made-this-guy-the-minister-of-tourism/

    The New Zealand Government is jeopardising its good name in international negotiations at this fortnight’s United Nations Climate Change Conference in Durban. It has been identified as one of a small number of States stalling progress in forming an international climate agreement. Other parties have privately condemned its conduct and predict it could risk the possibility of a credible outcome.“Negotiators and observers have been telling us that New Zealand is taking an exceptionally irresponsible position in the talks”, says Rachel Dobric of the New Zealand Youth Delegation.

    http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/govt-risks-nz-reputation-climate-summit/5/109660

    The 2nd place Fossil goes to New Zealand for proposing the most Flexible Mechanism imaginable with no oversight or review. Bring on the wild west. They want to be able to use any market mechanisms they wish with absolutely no oversight or international review! There would be no way to ensure that the units from one mechanism have not been sold two or three times to another such mechanism. This would likely unleash a wild west carbon market with double or triple counting of offsets and a likely increase of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

    http://www.climatenetwork.org/fossil-of-the-day/brazil-takes-1st-new-zealand-earns-2nd-canada-comes-3rd

    http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2011/12/farmers-lie-about-dirty-dairying.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

    Dirty dairying is one of our country’s biggest environmental problems, resulting in polluted waterways and undrinkable (and unswimmable) water. But the government fobs off concern about it, pointing to the “Clean Streams Accord”, an agreement between Fonterra, central government and regional councils, under which Fonterra promises to get its farmers to clean up their act voluntarily. Every year, MAF produces an annual snapshot of progress (collected here), and every year it shows that farmers are slowly but surely fencing their waterways, complying with the RMA, and setting nutrient budgets. So we don’t have a problem, right?
    Wrong. That report is based on what farmers tell Fonterra assessors every year. And it turns out that they lie, overstating their compliance on excluding stock from waterways by 100%:

    New Zealand’s fresh water can never be as clean and pure as it once was, but action must be taken to improve the quality of rivers, lakes and wetlands, the parliamentary commissioner for the environment says.
    In a new report for MPs on water quality, released today, commissioner Jan Wright says “clear clean cool streams, full of life” still flowed through forests in remote parts of the country.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6601622/Freshwater-report-We-need-to-come-clean

    Professional surfer and environmentalist Dave Rastovich worries that the world class waves at Raglan are being threatened by proposed iron ore seabed mining in New Zealand’s coastal waters.
    Kiwi-born Rastovich attended a recent protest in Raglan that coincided with the arrival of Andy Sommerville of Australian mining company Trans Tasman Resources (TTR).
    Sommerville was there to meet local iwi at Poihakena Marae to discuss TTR’s plans to extract  one billion tonnes of iron ore along the west coast of the North Island, a process that involves moving five billion tones of sand.
    It’s not just the waves that are threatened, there are also fears for the critically endangered Maui’s Dolphin.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/6598727/Top-surfer-worries-Raglan-under-threat

    Economic issues top the list of worries for most New Zealanders, while environmental worries have dropped in people’s priorities, according to the latest state of the nation report by pollsters Roy Morgan

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/6580017/Economy-trumps-environment-on-worry-list

    It brings into question the scientific models created by New Zealand and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) to allow fishing.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/6595293/McMurdo-Sounds-toothfish-population-at-risk

    Global greenhouse gas emissions could rise 50 per cent by 2050 without more ambitious climate policies, as fossil fuels continue to dominate the energy mix, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) says.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/6584939/OECD-warns-of-huge-greenhouse-gas-rise

    Imagine, if you will, taking your children down to the park to find an overseas’ owned company had set up a dairy farm in one corner. Over time the shit builds up and flows onto the play ground. You complain, but are told the farm is under no obligation to treat or retain their waste and the council has no powers to do anything about the mess. You wonder why this was allowed to happen.
    Well the government changed the rules and this company had only to apply to National’s new Environmental Protection Agency or (EPA) for the use of the land, pay a small application fee, and next thing, the company has the use of the land for eternity.
    This is not fiction, it’s what’s going on right now in the Marlborough Sounds. Anyone can apply to the EPA to set up a salmon farm, and pollute the surrounding water for free, paying no rent or rates. Unbelievable but true!
    http://thestandard.org.nz/king-salmon-stealing-our-future/

    Expansion of fish-farming in the Marlborough Sounds could cause unacceptable changes in the coastal environment, says Nelson-based research company Cawthron.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/marlborough-express/news/6427926/More-fish-farms-seen-as-environment-risk

    Auckland has New Zealand’s worst air pollution which is at levels nearly double that of Sydney, World Health Organisation data out today reveals.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/5690388/Auckland-air-worse-than-Sydneys

    Has anyone noticed the word “environment” steadily and strategically being removed from the lexicon of local and central government?

    Staff within the Department of Conservation, already reeling from nationwide cuts and greatly reduced budgets, are now required to put “Conservation for prosperity” at the bottom of their emails. Prosperity for whom? The Ministry for the Environment also has the relatively new mantra of “Environmental stewardship for a prosperous New Zealand”. At least the “E” word makes an appearance, but then it is the Ministry for the Environment after all.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/opinion/5960344/Environment-issues-dumped-in-favour-of-promoting-prosperity

    Synopsis: Every year, New Zealand drops huge quantities of poison-laced food into its forest ecosystems; enough poison to kill its human population 4 times over, every year. No country has ever done anything remotely similar, on such a scale… The targets are possums and rats, but the poisonous bait kills everything that eats it – including native birds, deer, farm stock, pets, and even insects. The US manufacturer advises that all uneaten baits, and carcasses, must be recovered, and burned or buried deeply. But the rules have changed in New Zealand. Baits and carcasses are left to decompose, where they fall. Poisoning Paradise investigates the scientific theory and rationalisation that drives this extraordinary practice, and provides a close-up look at one of the worlds most deadly poisons…
    http://www.cultureunplugged.com/play/7123

    Parliamentary commissioner for the environment Jan Wright was in Southland last week speaking about 1080 and lignite. SCOT MacKAY caught up with her.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/southland-times/life-style/5736046/Leading-the-charge-for-a-healthy-environment

    Prime Minister John Key has dismissed claims he is placing pressure on the Conservation Department (DoC) by appearing at the opening of Bathurst Resources’ new office.
    Environment groups and the Green Party said Key’s appearance would be a sign to DoC – which is to decide on access agreements for Bathurst’s flagship West Coast project – of what the Prime Minister wanted it to do.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/6615499/PM-accused-of-taking-sides-on-mining

    More than a third of Auckland’s beaches fail water quality checks and are closed for swimming
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/pollution/news/article.cfm?c_id=281&objectid=10777375

    Auckland beaches are closed as high levels of pollution have forced people out of the water for safety reasons. Warning signs have popped up on Judges Bay Beach, in Parnell, after water quality tests this week found an extremely high concentration of the bacteria enterococci.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/pollution/news/article.cfm?c_id=281&objectid=10779897

    22 March 2012 at 4:24 pm

    This is from Penny Bright in ‘Smith to go’ post.
    Is this not a major ‘conflict of interest’ if Prime Minister John Key stands to personally profit from opencast coal mining on conservation land, because of his personal shareholding in the Bank of America, which, in turn is a significant shareholder in Bathurst Resources Ltd?
    Whose interests are being served by NZ Prime Minister John Key?
    His own?
    As of 24 February 2012, the Bank of America was a substantial holder of shares in Bathurst Resources Ltd:
    “Class of Securities (4) – Ordinary
    Present Notice “Person’s Votes 72,302,308 Voting Power (5) 10.44%
    http://www.bathurstresources.com/files/files/1079_20120229_Change_in_substantial_holding.pdf
    NZ Prime Minister John Key is a shareholder in the Bank Of America.
    http://thestandard.org.nz/john-key-aussie-miners-stooge/comment-page-1/#comment-449977

    Access to some of New Zealand’s most endangered species and isolated islands is up for sale to help fund a pest programme in the Southern Ocean.
    The Department of Conservation is opening up berths on some of its most exclusive trips – including to the Snares Islands and Dusky Sound – to be auctioned off on TradeMe today.
    Money raised will go towards the “Million Dollar Mouse” project, which aims to find $1 million to eradicate mice off the Antipodes Islands.
    The Antipodes are an ecological treasures that lie 800km southeast of Bluff, home to rare species like the Antipodes Island snipe and the Antipodes Island parakeet.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/7075119/DOC-auctioning-access-to-rare-species

    The Government wants to make more money from its conservation estate and is eying opportunities for increased revenue gathering.
    A Statement of Intent setting out the direction for the Department of Conservation (DOC) over the next five years says New Zealand is facing ongoing biodiversity losses at the same time as overall public spending is coming under growing pressure, so new ways of funding conservation must be found.
    ”The Department must fundamentally change its approach to continue the momentum for conservation. This means not just finding new sources of revenue . . .but changing the mindset and behaviours of the organisation as a whole,” the statement said.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/7035181/Government-wants-to-cash-in-on-conservation

    Twenty years of broken promises and failures to meet environmental obligations have left New Zealand with little to be proud of, according to a new “wake-up call” report issued on the eve of a global summit.
    The World Wildlife Fund report, Beyond Rio, has slated successive governments for failing the environment since promises made at the original Rio Earth Summit in 1992, and says the country now risks some of the highest rates of biodiversity loss on Earth unless urgent action is taken.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/6998244/NZ-fails-to-act-on-environmental-vows

    A Fonterra director whose company has been fined for fouling a Bay of Plenty waterway with cow effluent declared to the dairy co-op there had been a “one-off breach” on one of his farms. But the judge who yesterday ordered Colin Armer’s firm to pay $72,000 disagreed – instead citing a “systemic” failure that could have been prevented by better monitoring . . .

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/pollution/news/article.cfm?c_id=281&objectid=10815436

    Frankly it’s wrong to claim New Zealand has the environmental laws and regulations to control oil and gas development on the continental shelf.  There is no equivalent of the Resource Management Act to control oil and gas activity outside of the territorial sea (12 nautical miles offshore).

    http://www.eco.org.nz/key-issues/oceans.html

    In a sneaky move the Government is to over-ride agreed coastal plans and allow marine farming consent holders in the Waikato and Marlborough to move from mussel farming to finfish farming without considering the additional environmental effects imposed.  While fin fish farms involve the discharge of thousands of tonnes of fish food, no such impact occurs with mussel or oyster farming.  This change in activity should be assessed like any other major change in activity through a resource consent process – it is like the Government removing discharge consent requirements from factory farms on land.

    http://www.eco.org.nz/key-issues/aquaculture.html

    The government has bowed to pressure from economic interests in allowing offsets.  This permits damage in one place on condition that it is “offset” elsewhere.  It is a potentially dangerous provision because in reality it can often mean that one area or part of biodiversity can be wrecked in return for “protecting” an area that was never under threat anyway.  The drafters of the Proposed NPS have provided Schedule 2 to the NPS that is designed to provide some tests and principles to limit the scope of such offsetting.  That is welcome, and some of the principles are good.

    http://www.eco.org.nz/key-issues/biodiversity.html

    The proposals noted by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment ( 2010, p14) include a plant producing about 2 billion litres of diesel per year, using at least 12 million tonnes of lignite per year and another producing 3 billion litres using 12-17 million tonnes of lignite annually. A further project would produce by 2016 1.2 tonnes of the nitrogenous fertiliser, urea, using 2 million tonnes of lignite annually.

    http://www.eco.org.nz/key-issues/climate.html

    Documents obtained under the Official Information Act have revealed that DOC was intending to turn down Meridian (application to buils a damn on the Mohikinui River) and believed “the public conservation land within the Mokihinui River has such high value that it is most unlikely to be suitable for exchange at all.”
    Forest & Bird ran a successful campaign to give New Zealanders the chance to urge Meridian Energy to withdraw its proposal.
    One irony was that Meridian was a recent sponsor of Project Crimson but the Mokihinui project would have drowned the very rata forests it pledged to protect.

    http://www.eco.org.nz/key-issues/energy.html

    Maui’s dolphins still not safe from the threat of extinction.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1206/S00386/protection-measures-for-mauis-dolphins-fall-short.htm

    A significant cost cutting exercise within the Environment portfolio helps explain why Budget 2012 has come and gone without a sighting of Minister Amy Adams, says Labour’s Environment spokesperson Grant Robertson.
    “Environment has always been seen as the poor cousin by National, but in this budget it appears to have been kicked out of the family altogether. The Minister has not even bothered to issue a media statement to outline the details.
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1205/S00478/cuts-to-environment-budget-explain-the-missing-minister.htm

    The Local Government and Environment Committee’s report back on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill is extremely disappointing and a lost opportunity to put in place a robust consenting regime for the EEZ and continental shelf, according to the Environmental Defence Society. . . . “The Bill also fails to comply with New Zealand’s international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea which includes an obligation on nations to ‘protect and preserve” the marine environment. This risks damage to New Zealand’s international reputation.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1205/S00267/eez-bill-fails-to-protect-the-environment-and-nz-reputation.htm

    Greater Wellington Regional Council today released its state of the environment report. It highlights the poor quality of many urban, lowland and Wairarapa waterways, and some rivers and aquifers being at their allocation limit.
    “The state of the region’s waterways especially in the Wairarapa shows that national environmental standards are urgently needed to set limits on intensive agriculture to protect our rivers, lakes and aquifers,” said Ms Sage.
    “The Government has yet to commit to setting national standards for water quality despite these being recommended by the Land and Water Forum.
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1206/S00207/strong-national-standards-needed-to-clean-up-rivers.htm

    “The Government has weakened protection for wild rivers in Canterbury with the ECan Act and indications are that they are seeking to weaken river protection further.”

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1205/S00550/green-party-welcomes-pce-call-for-improved-river-protection.htm

    Today’s Environmental Protection Authority’s (EPA) decision to rubber stamp the Transmission Gully motorway project is a poor decision that will see over a billion dollars of tax payers’ money wasted,

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1206/S00336/epa-rubber-stamps-dead-duck-motorway.htm

    In its response to Questions for Written Answer by Ms Delahunty, the Government admitted it is undertaking a $1.67 million survey of minerals on the West Coast of New Zealand, including within the Te Wahipounamu South West New Zealand world heritage area. Te Wahipounamu is one of 183 natural heritage properties which the World Heritage Committee considers as having outstanding universal value.
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1206/S00355/world-heritage-areas-should-not-be-open-to-mining.htm

    National Ltd™ secretly ordered that world heritage sites on the West Coast be surveyed as part of a $3 million mineral study spanning more than 16,000 square kilometres.
    The Government’s aeromagnetic survey started in February last year and covered about 70 per cent of the West Coast, excluding national parks and high-value schedule 4 conservation land.
    The aerial survey was publicly revealed yesterday as a result of parliamentary questions by Green party MP Catherine Delahunty.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/7168686/Mineral-study-marked-Coast-sites

    The former interests of members appointed to the Establishment Board for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) make them unsuitable candidates for the job
    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1103/S00071/epa-board-members-unlikely-to-protect-the-environment.htm

    Inexperienced managers, poor policy decisions and falling staff numbers are threatening New Zealand’s biosecurity, a group of quarantine inspectors claim.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7175215/Biosecurity-fears-voiced-in-staff-letter

    The independent report into the outbreak of the PSA virus was commissioned by the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) following the devastation caused by the virus in the Bay of Plenty orchards with an estimated cost of $400 million.
    The report, released yesterday, found “shortcomings” in New Zealand’s biosecurity system although it could not say how the incursion had occurred
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/7224595/Govt-ignored-biosecurity-warning-Labour

    Prime Ministert John Key confirmed taxpayers would have to pick up the $80 million tab as a result of the cancelling of Emissions Trading Scheme provisions for business and farmers announced yesterday,
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7208247/Nats-soften-emissions-blow-for-businesses

    New Zealand Minister for the Environment Kate Wilkinson fobs off Save Fiordland protesters. Spokeswoman Daphne Taylor presented Ms Wilkinson with the Fiordland National Park Management Plan and the Conservation Management Strategy. “Just in case you haven’t read these,” Ms Taylor told her.
    The process to grant consent for the Milford Dart tunnel and Fiordland Link Experience should never have started if the documents had been followed, Ms Taylor said.
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/7222907/Stop-the-Fiordland-tunnel-Wilkinson-told

    A National Ltd™ appointed advisory group has recommended a significant rewrite of the Resource Management Act, removing references to the protection of coastal areas, wetlands, lakes and rivers and indigenous flora and fauna.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10817613

    National Ltd™ Environment Minister Nick Smith gave $180,000 of taxpayer cash to fund meetings to resolve disputes between farmers and environmentalists clashing over projects in the Mackenzie Basin and Waitaki Valley.

    The Mackenzie Sustainable Futures Trust was set up to help resolve the disputes.

    Documents issued under the Official Information Act reveal senior environment ministry officials had serious concerns about the project, and declined an application for a $200,000 grant earlier this year. However, Dr Smith overuled the decision and the group got another $80,000.

    More than half the cash went to environmental consultants – including about $88,000 to Ecologic, a firm run by Dr Smith’s friend Guy Salmon. Mr Salmon is also linked to the National Party ginger group the BlueGreens.

    WHERE THE CASH WENT
    Ecologic consultant Guy Salmon: $88,010 (includes $682 in restaurant and bar charges)
    Whanganui-based consultant Richard Thompson: $13,130 (includes $149 in restaurant and bar bills)
    Environment Defence Society: $2256
    Restaurant and bar charges for meeting participants (at May, June and August meetings): $5495
    Production of report and interim report: $30,800

    John Key remains “relaxed”
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/7327570/Money-for-mates-claims-to-be-probed-says-PM

    A further weakening of the already gutted resource consent process is being considered for foreign-owned mining companies, according to Energy and Resources Minister. Phil; Heatley.
    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/resource-consents-mining-might-be-speed-heatley-ck-124676

    The public is being locked out of the consultation process on the alloting of areas being made available by the government for resource exploration.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/7366483/Oil-firms-first-to-seek-information
    National Ltd™ scraps government grants for solar water heating and Parliamentary Commissioner comes out against them:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10822323

    National Ltd™ use the Navy along with police and Crown Law to bully environmental protesters in a legal case they knew could not be won:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10822405

    National Ltd™ puts out an international call for foreign companies to drill for oil and gas in 23 blocks of deep and wild waters east of Wellington and Dunedin.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10811689

    National Ltd™ consultants do a u-turn on the economic benefits of additional roading and then get handed a $200 million contract for further consultation work.
    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/doubts-worth-holiday-highway-4992534

    The Department of Conservation grants foreign-owned multinational mining company OceanaGold permission to destroy 55 hectares of beech forest so as to extend its Reefton mine to a total 81 hectares without public notification:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/minerals/news/article.cfm?c_id=259&objectid=10818463

    As National Ltd™ prepares to ease the resource consent process for mining companies, the Minerals Industry Association starts putting pressure on local authorities to step aside:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10823321

    Economic commentator Gareth Morgan details National Ltd™’s ramshackle collection of underfunded agencies with no direction or policy for dealing with the vast marine resources of New Zealand:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10823294

    A further erosion of New Zealand’s bio-security is highted when Christchurch Airport is found to have failed a survey:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10823549
    Open letter to Minister for the Environment

    http://www.eds.org.nz/content/documents/pressreleases/ENGOs%20letter%20re%20TAG%20report.pdf

    Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment Dr Jan Wright says planned changes to the Emissions Trading Scheme will be a costly and environmentally damaging mistake.
    The changes are part of the ETS amendment Bill currently before select committee. Dr Wright has submitted on the Bill this afternoon.
    Dr Wright says she is particularly concerned with subsidies to polluters being locked in.
    “Right now we’re subsidising ninety-five percent of big polluters’ emissions. That was due to be phased out, albeit too slowly, but the Bill will leave those subsidies in place indefinitely.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1209/S00143/ets-changes-a-farce-environment-commissioner.htm
    • r0b 13.1

      18 September 2012 at 6:13 am

      Good work BLiP.

Links to post

1. The cost of doing nothing « The Standard: posted on 28 September 2012 at 11:08 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS