Bravo Young Nats – endorse zero carbon

18 comments on “Bravo Young Nats – endorse zero carbon ”

• Comments are now closed

1. roycartland 1

   1 July 2017 at 11:50 am

   Imagine if the National party became a real National party, rather than the corrupt, dairy-reaching, hollow-act, incompetent power-zombies they are now.
2. Drowsy M. Kram 2

   1 July 2017 at 11:56 am

   At last, some (un)common sense from a National source – well past time for humans to cut the crap flowing into our only pool.

   The ship was towed outside the environment
3. Sacha 3

   1 July 2017 at 2:00 pm

   Great move. Now if we can dislodge the current fossils from power it looks like cross-parliamentary support could prevail long enough to do the job.
4. Booker 4

   1 July 2017 at 3:08 pm

   Wow, I’m sensing some awkward moments when the Young Nats meet up with their older brethren.
5. Cinny 5

   1 July 2017 at 3:44 pm

   Dang! One way to get members, excuse my cynical response. It appears they are changing their behaviour dramatically from last election. Is it survival of their favoured political party, or survival of all life on the planet?

   Would be good if they are sincere and are proactive in their claims, I’d like to give praise but their track record prevents me from doing so until I see real action from them.

   Climate change is very very real, and we can’t control the sun.

   Historic events and records along with current technology all point to a Grand Solar Minimum manifesting in our lifetime.

   It’s a good time to learn how to grow food.

   If the youngnats can’t lobby the outgoing government to do more about climate change, maybe they should take their votes elsewhere. JS

   Looking forward to hearing about their action and results
6. Robert Guyton 6

   1 July 2017 at 4:46 pm

   The Young Nats can see how vulnerable their party is to serious and valid criticism around their weak, irresponsible response to climate change and wish the issue to be “non-political” – I bet they do!
   • John up North 6.1

     1 July 2017 at 5:17 pm

     I agree Robert, it can’t be a non-political issue as for the most part it concerns big $$$. And the Nat party is all about keeping the big $$$ in the pockets of their friends and enablers.

     Also the Nats are specialists at saying one thing and then either completely ignoring their promise or making the “cure” so weak/underfunded that the net result is statis quo.

     I don’t doubt the young Nats are following the same billshit formula as their idols in their party that they aspire to emulate.
   • Poission 6.2

     1 July 2017 at 7:35 pm

     Under the Paris agreement the emission reduction targets are politically binding.

     The metric mechanisms for measurements ie the scientific calculations under full carbon accounting are legally binding.

     Biennial updates on all countries’ national greenhouse gas inventories “shall” be reported, according to Article 13, paragraph 4 of the Paris Agreement. However, according to World Resources Institute (WRI), some exceptions will be given to “the least developed countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), who will report at their discretion.” Under The Agreement, emission reduction targets are politically binding, but not legally binding. This shifts pressure toward the reporting and verification mechanisms embedded in The Agreement, which are legally binding.

     Expert review is called for in Article 13 paragraphs 11 & 12 of the Paris Agreement. This expert review would represent the “V” (or Verification) in MRV. Expert review acts as a Transparency Mechanism and “the review process shall include assistance in identifying capacity-building needs”

     http://envirocenter.yale.edu/transparency-the-backbone-of-the-Paris-Agreement

     This is a fatal flaw in the Fletcher case,as is the transparency mechanism agreement which is still being negotiated and takes effect from 2020,and will include the updated scientific sink mechanisms.

     http://www.wri.org/blog/2015/12/insider-enhanced-and-effective-framework-transparency-and-accountability-paris
7. savenz 7

   1 July 2017 at 8:07 pm

   How funny young Nats are only concerned about climate change this close to an election, after 9 years of fake carbon credits, oil speculation and zero public transport or rail from their party.

   Nats can turn fish to faeces and fascists to friends.

   They have zero credibility on carbon or anything remotely environmental.

   If you truely believed in zero carbon emissions then you could not be a National supporter.

   As for generation Zero, they seem like a green washing organisation for property developers to me. Thinking that a PPP is a good idea and the public pay for the Sky bridge if you walk or cycle while trucks go for free??? That is National thinking through and through.
8. Bob 8

   1 July 2017 at 8:14 pm

   Well said SAVENZ.
   The hypocrisy that will inevitably get worse as this campaign grows.
   The New Generation, are not as self centred as they were in the 90,s, let’s hope the young can be mobilised to vote this time round.
9. Ad 9

   1 July 2017 at 8:28 pm

   The New Zealand Parliament has across parties already collectively endorsed a common future, by publishing and debating the report: “Net zero in New Zealand: Scenarios to achieve domestic emissions neutrality in the second half of the century”

   https://www.parliament.nz/en/get-involved/features/mps-collaborate-across-party-lines-in-response-to-climate-change/

   The full report is in there.

   So the YoungNats as ever are just following on behind the grownups.

   It’s entirely possible that if National wins again – particularly if there is good coverage of the court case – that they simply endorse this report and start to really take emissions and climate change off the political table and in to common policy formation.
10. Robert Atack 10

    2 July 2017 at 12:32 am

    Zero carbon = zero food, zero current lifestyle, zero cars, zero planes, zero humans.
    You must have zero brains to believe the BS
    • McFlock 10.1

      2 July 2017 at 12:53 am

      net not gross.
    • Red 10.2

      2 July 2017 at 7:40 pm

      Robert Nostradamus predicted the end of the world a while back, I think the Aztecs said it was all over a couple years ago, Hollywood even made a movie, the Hun invasion was the end of the world so was the mongol invasions, the plague, bird flu, swine flu, nuclear war was going to wipe us out during the Cold War, get the picture mate your just a long line of gloomy pants, the only cast iron guarantee here is unfortunately you wont be the last, Oh i forgot the rapture has been predicted for the last 2000 years resulting in many gullible people doing stupid stuff or like you wasting what time they have fretting instead of doing something positive
      • Robert Guyton 10.2.1

        2 July 2017 at 8:06 pm

        BM – no world has ever ended following predictions of doom?
        It’s happened time and time again throughout history.
        Now, we have a bigger story, where “the world” really does mean the whole globe, rather than the “known worlds” that have fallen. Why you think that world endings are unpredictable is a mystery to me.
      • greywarshark 10.2.2

        2 July 2017 at 8:20 pm

        Red
        You find it amusing that people use their brains and try to shape their destinies while you sit in your comfy chair and watch and smile – and tell everyone what a waste of time they are.

        You are as deluded as Monty Python.
        (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnS49c9KZw8
11. Kevin 11

    2 July 2017 at 11:00 am

    Too little, too late. Stable door and all that.
12. KJT 12

    2 July 2017 at 11:11 am

    Good on them.

    High hopes for the younger generation.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS