Climate change change vs scaremongering

Written By: - Date published: 1:19 pm, December 11th, 2016 - 31 comments
Categories: climate change, Environment - Tags: , , ,

I’ve been arguing for a while that Guy McPherson is as much a problem as Climate Change deniers. I won’t read his work now for a number of reasons. It is scaremongering at its worst and I don’t need to be more alarmed about CC than I already am. My time is better spent talking and writing about what we can do. McPherson is essentially proselytising the end of the world and how we should enjoy it, and the danger in that (a serious danger IMO) is that it encourages people who are finding change too difficult to just give up, or worse, have a party that makes the ship go down when we might still have a chance to save it. I also object to his position because he states his opinion as fact. He doesn’t know that the world is ending, he believes it is. It’s dishonest to confuse those two things.

Let me be clear, the situation we are in is very serious and we should be doing everything we can to mitigate and then adapt to CC. It’s the most important issue of all time. So please don’t take my views on McPherson as a statement that everything is going to be alright. I’m instead pointing to the damage that can be done when we scare people too much and they stop acting.

I also have to say that I don’t particularly care about the maths, because personally I’m already convinced we are in serious shit and arguing about the maths is like trying to measure the temperature of the house fire while there are people still inside. I’m sure some will debate that in the article below Renwick is too conservative, with an intentional or unintentional implication that McPherson must be right. My concern here isn’t so much with the maths, as what gives us the best chance of mitigating the worst effects of CC? Is it telling people we’re all going to die? Or is it giving people the information, skills and pathways they need in order to proactively effect change? – weka.

The following is a post from Hot Topic by climate scientist James Renwick, who attended one of McPherson’s recent lectures in NZ. It puts McPherson’s claims in the context of current climate science, and makes some points about where McPherson is getting it wrong.

Guy McPherson and the end of humanity (not)

Is climate change going to wipe out humanity over the next 10 years? Prof Jim Renwick doesn’t think so…

Ecologist Guy McPherson has been touring New Zealand for the past couple of weeks, explaining why humanity has only 10 years to live (a kind-of Ziggy message that has immediate appeal to me). After his appearance on the Paul Henry breakfast show, I was called by TV3/Newshub for comment. Based on my understanding of climate change science I said that though the situation is very serious — dire even — extinction in 10 years is not going to happen. When I gave my remarks to Newshub, I knew little about McPherson but I understood that he is a very knowledgeable biologist who should not be dismissed lightly.

So, what’s the story? Is McPherson right? Is the IPCC woefully conservative and keeping the truth from us all? I had the opportunity to hear Prof McPherson speak in Paraparaumu on Saturday (Dec 10th) to get more insight into what his views really are. It was a very interesting presentation, and a very interesting discussion with the audience of 50-odd Kāpiti coasters who showed up to hear him. As the old saying goes, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What we heard was extraordinary for sure, but was not too convincing in terms of evidence.

McPherson’s presentation was as much philosophy as science. Much of his message is built around the undeniable truth that we are all, one day, going to die. Hence, we would do well to live in and for the present, express our love to those close to us, and act rightly according to our own beliefs and principles. Excellent advice, and a great philosophy for living well, what you would be told in any number of “life-coaching” books. Where he differs from most is in saying that all of us, i.e. all of humanity, and most other species, will be extinct in 10 years or so. Why is that, you might ask?

The detail on his view of the climate system can be gained by reading his “monster climate change essay”. A briefer overview, and what he bases much of the scientific side of his presentation on, comes from a blog postat the Arctic-News blogspot site,  written by “Sam Carana” (not his or her real name – you know why). This piece suggests that the globe will warm around 10°C in the next decade, and since such warming was associated with mass extinctions in past epochs, humanity and most vertebrates etc will be toast very soon.

The blog post starts by assuming the February 2016 global mean temperature represents the current average temperature of the earth, then throws in another 0.8°C for pre-1900 (0.3°C) and unavoidable future (0.5°C) warming. This is pushing it, as February was the warmest single month on record (in difference from normal terms), several tenths of a degree above the annual mean for 2016, and the amount of unavoidable future warming is small (maybe 0.1°C?), should greenhouse gas emissions stop now.

However, the next steps are where McPherson’s grasp of the science seems shakiest. Cutting aerosol pollution to zero (as would happen when and if industrial society falls over) will unmask another 2.5°C of warming. This is a factor of ten too large, as the actual amount would be around 0.25°C by current best estimates (see figure 10.5). Reduced planetary reflectivity (albedo) from loss of Arctic ice will add another 1.6°C (perhaps in the Arctic, but not in the global mean), plus the water vapour feedback, seafloor methane release etc will add an extra 3.5°C. So that’s another 7.5°C on top of essentially where we are at now, giving a total of about 10°C warming compared to pre-industrial, assumed to happen in the next 10 years. Then, all the world’s nuclear reactors melt down, and we are all extinct.

The way Guy McPherson talks about water vapour shows his sketchy grasp of atmospheric physics. He states that most of the water vapour in the atmosphere is above 6km altitude, where it “acts like a lens” to heat the earth. Most of the water vapour is actually in the lowest few kilometres of the atmosphere, as the upper troposphere is too cold to support much water vapour. Perhaps he’s thinking of the release of latent heat in the tropics, which does occur mostly in the upper troposphere, leading to a warming “hot spot” in the tropical upper troposphere as greenhouse gas concentrations rise (See AR5 WG1, figure 12.12).

Water vapour is of course a critically important part of the climate change story and is the main amplifying feedback of greenhouse gas increase. McPherson is trained as an ecologist, so it’s no surprise that he isn’t totally on top of the vertical profile of water vapour in the atmosphere. But, if your public profile depends on your image as an authority on “global warming”, you would do well to be clear on the science.

Now, the potential consequences of climate change, and the lurking feedbacks such as Arctic methane release and other carbon cycle changes, are an extremely serious concern, one that I think the governments of the world have yet to really take on board. The risks of severe food and water shortages, population displacements and conflict over resources, already has the potential to endanger hundreds of millions of lives – even with another degree or two of warming (as outlined in the last IPCC report). But truly catastrophic and extremely rapid climate changes do not look to be on the cards, at all. Earth’s climate is not poised for “runaway” change (as per Venus), nor is there any clear indication from the geological record that the climate system is so sensitive to greenhouse gas increase that 10°C of warming in 10 years is imminent, or even possible. The climate community of course does not know everything about past climate change nor about what the climate system is capable of if pushed hard. But, the extinction in 10 years scenario is really at the outer edge of speculation about the future.

Even without imminent extinction, the consequences of climate change are more than dire enough to galvanise us into action. My perception is that concerted global action within the next decade can avoid the worst consequences. The flip side is that business as usual, even for another ten years, could lock in changes that do indeed put global society at risk and threaten possibly hundreds of millions to billions of lives. Not instant death but a very unpleasant future for a very long time. I find that prospect plenty scary enough, and it leaves room for us to take action. Let’s take it.

Gareth adds: McPherson’s views are a good example of real climate “alarmism”. Deniers love to paint the IPCC or consensus position on climate change as alarmist, thereby implying that their rejection of that consensus is somehow sensible or moderate. McPherson’s stance shows that to be a mere debating trick. The truth, of course, is that by rejecting the consensus view on what we can expect, deniers are as extreme as McPherson — polar opposites, but just as guilty of exaggeration.

31 comments on “Climate change change vs scaremongering”

  1. weka 1

    A couple of articles from scientists refuting McPherson’s work (in 2014), from a comment in the Hot Topic post,

    http://planet3.org/2014/03/13/mcphersons-evidence-that-doom-doom-doom/

    https://fractalplanet.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/how-guy-mcpherson-gets-it-wrong/

  2. Macro 2

    Thanks for posting this weka.
    As you are aware – my thoughts on the matter of MacPherson’s claims fall much in line with those of Jim Renwick and Gareth Renowden above.
    Further to the above article on the misconceptions of MacPherson it is important to state that he bases his outlandish claims on a misunderstanding of feedback loops. His “thesis” is based upon the misconception that feedbacks are multiplicative, and true there are many differnt feedbacks in the climate system – both positive and negative, but he claims that they have a multiplying effect on each other which is clearly erroneous, as their effect are not multiplicative but additive – and that is a big difference.

    • Draco T Bastard 2.1

      Feedback loops have an exponential nature:

      When the loop gain is positive and above 1, there will typically be exponential growth, increasing oscillations, chaotic behavior or other divergences from equilibrium.

      • Macro 2.1.1

        The feedback maybe exponential as you say – but that is not argument that MacPherson is making. There are numerous feedbacks (Water vapour, artic methane, albelio etc) – and his thesis is based upon a belief that they interact multiplicatively whereas they do not.

        • weka 2.1.1.1

          Does that mean that if take phenomena 1 and phenomena 2, they will each have the same effects together that they would alone, whereas GM is arguing that you get double (or whatever) the effect of each because they are happening together?

          • Macro 2.1.1.1.1

            Yes essentially that is the case. By doing this he calculates a 10 degree increase in global surface temperatures in 10 years. That is obviously an outlandlish claim. And as Jim Renwick notes in his post on Hot Topic; inflates each forcing in some cases by a factor of 10 – eg the elimination of aerosols. He gets these figures by incorrectly misinterpreting the nature of feedbacks. He is an ecologist – not a physicist. However even ecologists need to understand the physics.

        • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.2

          It’s entirely possible that they will interact multiplicatively rather additively.

          It’s a complex system of relationships. An increase in one could result in a multiplicative increase in another.

          Personally, I’d expect it to be a proportional change and that is always multiplicative although most like measured in decimals of less than one. Added together they then, overall, be greater than one and at that point we have an exponential increase.

          No, I don’t think that things are as bad as McPherson thinks but I also don’t think things are as optimistic as the IPCC reports either.

        • Given that CC itself is exponential in nature, even additive feedbacks are a huge problem.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.2

        Climatologists use the term to describe different phenomena than the one described by sound engineers. Even jargon depends on context.

        There was a post or comment about this on Realclimate some years ago – I’ll try and find a link…. to no avail. In any event, the terms are not interchangable:

        Climate change feedback (Wikipedia).

  3. Bill 3

    I don’t really care about McPherson. As someone said in a thread hereabouts, he’s the carbon copy negative of a denier.

    And as you know, I kind of do care about the numbers (eg – the available carbon budget and what not) . But anyway, putting all of that aside, something worth throwing in is that there seem to be a large number of people who don’t act because they believe we (or they) will be able to adapt as stuff ‘comes down the line’.

    And that’s the scary one for me; this idea of, or faith in simple adaptation.

    Even if we are of a mind to find it acceptable for those in temperate regions (us) to adapt to an average global surface temp increase of (say) 2 degrees even as that average surface temp increase makes living impossible for however many millions in equatorial or tropical regions, by the time we act on the basis of that immediate and impacting 2 degrees scenario, there will be another x degrees of warming locked in. And sure, maybe we adapt to that additional temperature too. But by then there’s another x degrees of warming locked in.

    And this is putting any feedback loops to one side. But there seems to be a kind of Peter Principle implicit to the idea of adaptation because of the lag time in warming.

    So whereas in management terms, the Peter Principle suggests that employees only stop being promoted once they can no longer perform effectively, and “managers rise to the level of their incompetence.” – relying on adaptation to survive likely CC we (or some lucky few in the right place) adapt right up until the situation we find ourselves in is beyond adaptation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_principle

  4. AB 4

    McPherson is a gift to the CC deniers. He gives their accusations of alarmism some credibility.

  5. johnm 5

    Canadian Climate Scientist, Paul Beckwith says we’re in a climate emergency.He believes we must:

    1. Stop all emissions now
    2. Geoengineer the Arctic to stop its melting
    3.Start direct CO2 removal from the atmosphere asap.

    Peter Wadhams also advocates we must do 2 and 3

    Can’t see it happening though, we certainly will continue on our merry way with BAU and eventually CO2 will get to 450ppm.

    https://paulbeckwith.net/

  6. Andre 6

    Something I find really disappointing is when discussion starts about a specific mitigation measure such as a carbon tax, there are always poo-poohers jumping in to say we shouldn’t be dreaming about it because it’s not enough on it’s own to solve the problem.

    There is no magic bullet, there’s just the sum of a lot of different mitigation measures we can do now, a lot of development of new mitigation measures, and a lot of adaptation we won’t be able to avoid. How much and how expensive the third one will be depends on how serious we get about the first two.

    • Bill 6.1

      Too many people put far too much store by carbon pricing. And the studies show, conclusively, that a price on carbon as a central plank to any mitigation policy…well, it’s akin to standing on a train track and walking down the tracks ‘away’ from the train. Doesn’t even really buy much time.

  7. Red Hand 7

    Walk, cycle or use public transport
    Reduce meat, fish and dairy consumption (or stop eating them)
    Grow vegetables and fruit trees
    Turn off the lights, get rid of TV, dishwasher, dryer, heat pump, motor mower, leaf blower, hedge and string trimmers
    Reduce or stop air travel overseas
    When travelling stay in a homestay, camping ground or apartment
    Go boating in a sailboat
    Avoid supermarkets
    Avoid packaged goods
    Get a big, well made kete and use it

    • b waghorn 7.1

      and hope like fuck science comes up with a fix because 7 billion humans and climbing says that we art going to learn the hard way what happens when you ignore cause and effect.

  8. Andre 8

    Some interesting thoughts If Tillerson (ExxonMobil CEO) gets the nod for Secretary of State it will open up opportunities to publicize how they’ve been deceitful about climate change since the 70s at least

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jamie-henn/trumps-pick-of-rex-tiller_b_13552612.html

  9. The Pants Of Doom 9

    When are we going to face up to the population issue?

    It’s time we made having children considerably more expensive. We do not need more humans. This is going to be a very hard call but someone needs to make it.

    Turning off appliances is not going to cut it.

  10. Pat 10

    if nothing else McPherson at least got climate change on the news and on the home pages of the daily newspapers for a few days……no mean feat in the current environment.

  11. Incognito 11

    A different perspective on climate (change) and possibly off-topic, but only ever so slightly IMHO, and a very interesting read:

    http://sciblogs.co.nz/guestwork/2016/12/10/ice-ages-earths-wobbly-orbit/

    If I had to put money on it, I’d say the Earth has experienced its last ice age for a very, very long time.

  12. CnrJoe 12

    did any of you even see how fast the last tens went bye?

  13. Sabine 13

    i just came across this at the site of the great orange satan aka Dkos.

    A diary about winter in Iceland that apparently never came this year.

    http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/12/10/1609543/-The-Sun-Has-Gone-But-Winter-Never-Came-A-hike-amongst-snowless-mountains-near-Reykjav-k

    but other then that all is well.

  14. Venezia 14

    Jim Renwick states ” My perception is that concerted global action within the next decade can avoid the worst consequences.” But are those with power to take ” concerted global action” coming anywhere close to this? The Paris agreement can hardly be decsribed as “concerted global action”. Thats the worry. For those with the power, retaining that political power and the focus on economic “growth” are the antithesis of what is needed.

  15. Seemorerocks 16

    Renwick’s science is at least 10’years out-of-date and hopekessly inaccurate. You don’t have to accept the near-term extinction but you can’t fault his science . Every statement is supported by scientific research that is at least up-to-date.

    How about doing something radical and start with reality and then sort out your response.

    Here is Prof. McPhersons response to Renwick

    http://youtu.be/tBjGYBmppg4

    • johnm 17.1

      Right at the end of Guy McPherson’s NZ tour Prof. James Renwick of Victoria University turned up and introduced himself. Instead of checking out the up-to-date references provided to him Renwick wrote a hit piece relying on grossly out-of-date information from the 4th IPCC Report.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • National out of touch over immigration
    National’s abrupt backflip on their recently-announced changes to immigration shows they never understood the problem and just came up with a confused knee jerk response, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. “Regional communities and businesses were quite right to ...
    6 hours ago
  • English out of touch on homelessness
    Bill English’s comments that he doesn’t know why people are complaining about the blowout in the number of homeless families the government is putting up in motels just shows how tired and out of touch National is after nine years, ...
    9 hours ago
  • All Kiwis to have same standard of cancer care
    Labour is promising that all New Zealanders will have access to the same level of cancer care no matter where they live in the country, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little.   “As someone who has survived cancer I ...
    1 day ago
  • Infrastructure announcement too long coming
    “What took you so long?” is Labour’s response to the Government’s announcement of a new infrastructure investment vehicle. Labour’s Auckland Issues spokesperson Phil Twyford says Labour announced its policy in 2015 to debt-finance infrastructure and service that debt with targeted ...
    1 day ago
  • Time for a breather on immigration
    National has no idea how to house the record number of people entering New Zealand, let alone cope with the pressure on health, education, and transport from this record population growth, says Labour’s Immigration spokesperson Iain Lees-Galloway. ...
    3 days ago
  • Labour to invest $4 billion in education
    Labour’s Education Manifesto will bring positive change across the education sector and is backed by a massive investment, says Labour’s Education Spokesperson Chris Hipkins.  “Labour’s plan will see an extra $4 billion invested over the next four years. It’s organised ...
    3 days ago
  • National’s shame: worst homelessness in the OECD
    National’s legacy is a housing crisis that has given New Zealand the worst homeless rate in the developed world, says Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. ...
    3 days ago
  • Labour taking action on school donations
    Labour will end so-called voluntary school donations for the majority of parents across the country under its $4 billion plan to revitalise the education sector, says Labour Leader Andrew Little. “Labour has always been committed to a world-class free education ...
    3 days ago
  • Labour to work with Queenstown to build more houses
    Labour will work with Queenstown-Lakes District Council, iwi, and the Community Housing Trust to build the modern, affordable housing Queenstown desperately needs, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. ...
    4 days ago
  • Nats blow the Budget on motels after bowling state houses
    National is spending $140,000 a day putting homeless families in motels, the legacy of nine years of selling off and knocking down state houses, says Labour Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. ...
    4 days ago
  • New revelations in Joanne Harrison report
    The State Services Commission’s report into the treatment of whistle-blowers by Joanne Harrison has revealed new accusations against the convicted fraudster, says Labour MP Sue Moroney.  “The report found that four staff inside the Ministry of Transport who had raised ...
    4 days ago
  • Snafu at Princess Margaret
    Jonathan Coleman has to stop the stalling over a new building for mental health services in Christchurch to replace the quake damaged Princess Margaret Hospital, says Labour’s Health spokesperson David Clark. “The Government must accept that Christchurch is still recovering ...
    5 days ago
  • Labour’s fiscal plan to build a fairer New Zealand
    Labour will re-build our housing, health and education while responsibly managing New Zealand’s finances, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little.  “Under Labour’s Fiscal Plan we will deliver big investments in the services we all need and care about, invest ...
    5 days ago
  • Nats show they’re the tax dodgers’ best friends
    The government is taking the knife to IRD at a time when we need a highly skilled department to ensure that multinationals and speculators don’t get away with dodging tax, says Labour’s Revenue spokesperson Michael Wood. ...
    5 days ago
  • Labour secures the future for NZ Super
    A Labour Government will secure the future for New Zealand Superannuation so we can continue to provide superannuation to those retiring at age 65, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. “One of the first things a Labour-led Government will ...
    6 days ago
  • Multinationals must pay fair share of tax
    A Labour Government will crack down on multinational companies that are dodging paying their fair share of tax, says Labour Leader Andrew Little. “New Zealanders are missing out by hundreds of millions according to the IRD because multinational companies can ...
    6 days ago
  • ACT’s approach to children backward and ill informed
    Act’s new deputy leader’s claim that Labour’s support for families could “extend the misery of child poverty and even child abuse” is ill informed and offensive, says Labour’s Deputy Leader Jacinda Ardern. ...
    1 week ago
  • Canterbury hatchet job a disgrace
    The Government’s glib acceptance of advice that the Canterbury District Health Board doesn’t need more money is a hatchet job and a disgrace, says Labour’s Health Spokesperson David Clark. “To claim that the DHB was using tactics to leverage more ...
    1 week ago
  • Quality for Kiwi kids at ECE
    After more than a decade of rapid growth in the number of children participating in Early Childhood Education (ECE), it’s time to take stock and map out a clear plan for the future, says Labour’s Education spokesperson Chris Hipkins. ...
    1 week ago
  • Labour to boost ECE quality
    Labour will ensure kids get the best start in life by boosting funding for Early Childhood Centres to employ 100 per cent qualified and registered teachers, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. ...
    1 week ago
  • Labour will stump up a million dollars for Maniototo Hospital
    A Labour led Government will make a million dollars available to rebuild the Maniototo Base hospital in Ranfurly, says the Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little.  “This will be a much needed boost for a long overdue rebuild that has ...
    2 weeks ago
  • No vision for the West Coast
    The West Coast welcomes any Government investment in our region but the lack of any real alternative vision for the West Coast’s economy is disappointing, says Damien O’Connor Labour’s West Coast-Tasman MP.  “The establishment of a Mining Research Unit will ...
    2 weeks ago
  • National’s youth work scheme too little too late
    After nine years, National’s belated attempt to provide work opportunities for unemployed youth should be seen for what it is, a half-hearted, election gimmick from a party that’s ignored the problem till now, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Kiwis won’t fall for Joyce’s spin
    Steven Joyce’s embarrassingly obvious spin on Labour’s Families Package won’t fool anyone, says Labour’s Finance spokesperson Grant Robertson. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Labour prioritises families and public services
    Labour’s Families Package delivers a bigger income boost to more than 70 per cent of families with children than Budget 2017. By not spending $1.5 billion a year on tax cuts, Labour is able to do more for lower and ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Kiwis can’t sleep in your ghost houses, Nick
    The Government’s housing infrastructure announcement is another Nick Smith special – over-promising with no detail on delivery, says Labour’s Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Labour helps older New Zealanders and low income families with winter heating bills
    Labour will further boost its commitment to warm, healthy housing with a Winter Energy Payment for superannuitants and people receiving main benefits, says Leader of the Opposition Andrew Little. “Everyone deserves a warm, healthy home to live in. But that’s ...
    2 weeks ago
  • National must rule out retrospective override for Ruataniwha
    National must categorically rule out using retrospective legislation to override the Supreme Court’s decision that the land swap of conservation land flooded by the proposed Ruataniwha Dam was illegal, says Labour’s Shadow Attorney General David Parker. “Having not got their ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Flavell’s failure a win for Māori landowners
    The Māori Development Minister’s admission that his unpopular Ture Whenua Māori Bill won’t pass into law prior to the election is a victory for Māori landowners, but only a change of government will keep the Bill gone for good, says ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Stats confirm growing housing shortfall
    National’s failure to fix the housing shortage has been starkly illustrated by new statistics, says Labour Housing spokesperson Phil Twyford. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Systemic abuse of kids in state care
    After admitting there was systemic abuse of children in State care the Government must do the right thing and launch an independent inquiry, says Labour’s Deputy Leader Jacinda Ardern. ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Migrant worker exploitation needs sharper focus
    The astonishing number of employers found guilty of exploiting migrants shows that migrant exploitation is a serious problem in New Zealand, says Labour Workplace Relations and Safety spokesperson Iain Lees-Galloway. “A total of 53 companies have been banned from recruiting ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Minister faces questions over dam debacle
    Today’s Supreme Court ruling dismissing an appeal to allow a land swap for the controversial Ruataniwha Dam is a victory for our conservation estate and Hawke’s Bay ratepayers, but leaves the Conservation Minister with serious questions to answer, says Ikaroa-Rāwhiti ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Too little too late on Wellington housing
    The announcement today on social housing in Wellington by the National Government is a pitiful and cynical election ploy, says Labour’s Wellington Central MP Grant Robertson. “In 2012 Housing New Zealand emptied out the Gordon Wilson Flats, taking 130 places ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Foreign trusts wilt in the sunlight, but more transparency needed
    The fact that the numbers of foreign trusts registered in New Zealand has plummeted after the Government’s belated and reluctant imposition of a new reporting regime, in the wake of the Panama Papers scandal, shows the need for a transparent, ...
    3 weeks ago
  • Speech by Grant Robertson: The Future of Work and Labour’s Economic Vision
    At the election in September voters will face a choice between a government led by Andrew Little with a fresh approach to give every New Zealander a fair share in prosperity or the continuation of a tired government, out of ...
    3 weeks ago