- Date published:
6:05 am, February 15th, 2023 - 155 comments
Categories: civil defense, climate change, disaster, james shaw - Tags: civil emergency, cyclone, Cyclone Gabrielle
James Shaw in Parliament yesterday during the Ministerial Statements — Cyclone Gabrielle—Declaration of State of National Emergency.
Transcript from Hansard:
Yeah, thank you, Mr Speaker. The Green Party also supports the declaration of a state of emergency in response to Cyclone Gabrielle. I do want to thank the Government and the Minister for the decisive and comprehensive course of action that they are taking in response to this crisis.
I have to say that, just when we thought we had had our worst climate-related disaster this country only two weeks ago, we are facing an even more significant challenge. Last week, I went up to Auckland and saw the damage and saw the work that community organisations have been doing, including visiting a house that had been lifted completely off its foundations by the force of the water and shunted across its sections.
I have to say that, as I stand here today, I struggle to find words to express what I am thinking and feeling about this particular crisis. I don’t think I’ve ever felt as sad or as angry about the lost decades that we spent bickering and arguing about whether climate change was real or not, whether it was caused by humans or not, whether it was bad or not, whether we should do something about it or not, because it is clearly here now, and if we do not act, it will get worse.
I’ve been recalling, actually, a quote from a different time about a different crisis: “The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedience of delays, is coming to its close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.” And there will be people who say, you know—just as the National Rifle Association in the United States does about shootings over there—it’s “too soon” to talk about these things, but we are standing in it right now. This is a climate change – related event. The severity of it, of course, made worse by the fact that our global temperatures have already increased by 1.1 degrees. We need to stop making excuses for inaction. We cannot put our heads in the sand when the beach is flooding. We must act now.
Coverage in the Guardian:
In an interview with the Guardian, Shaw said he had spoken to New Zealand’s prime minister and finance minister about action that could allow those receiving insurance payments to rebuild their homes to relocate elsewhere instead.
“Some of those houses are in places where it’s a bad idea to have a house,” he said, referring to the “tens of thousands” of New Zealand homes built on flood plains or erosion-prone coastlines.
“There are decisions that we could make that I think would lead to longer term resilience and a more adaptive response that if we don’t make them, you’ll probably just get a reversion to the status quo,” said Shaw.
But he cautioned against a shift away from reducing emissions in order to foot the bill for dealing with the effects of the climate crisis.
“There will be a certain crowd who say … let’s give up on stopping climate change and its focus entirely on responding to the effects of climate change and I cannot state enough what a catastrophic mistake that would be,” Shaw said. “Because every tenth of a degree of warming increases the frequency and the severity of these events.”
Front page image RNZ / Samuel Rillstone
Let's waste our time trying to achieve consensus before we do anything about the Nazi threat said Winston Churchill never.
Totally agree. We have not yet achieved consensus on the shape of the planet. Can't wait for consensus on this.
A bit depressing and a bit like pissing in the sea though, when the largest nations in the world are doing this. And this. I would be all for us going hard if the larger nations in the world who could make a difference were taking the problem seriously. But, unfortunately, apparently not.
Ah yes, the stock reply from people who secretly deny there is a problem: "NZ only contributes such a small percentage to global warming, so we don't need to do anything. Look over there, China, USA, India etc. etc."
In a world of chaos, NZ can be a beacon of light, an exemplar the rest of the world can follow. We should never underestimate the influence of a small nation doing the right things. Jacinda showed us our reach can much exceed our grasp.
While it would improve our reputation with some (and yet also generate a right wing backlash) – the focus should be how to generate successful change at the global scale, and that is multi-lateral agreement.
And…..summed ! Onya : )
the potential for NZ to lead on this is huge.
I didn't say we shouldn't be doing anything. I am all for getting rid of our own coal power generation and replacing with renewables, and moving towards greener transport etc.
But I don't see the point in hobbling our own productive sector if other much bigger countries are doing the opposite and leveraging their own productive sectors by increasing their own coal power generation.
I am in favour of doing what we practically can with respect to emmissions without compromising our ability to produce food. Especially considering that we are one of the most efficient countries in the world at that in terms of emmissions.
And, I am in favour of increasing our ability to adapt to climate change, through relocating to less risky areas etc.
so your position is let's keep the good things until everything collapses? or do you think that climate change is not that serious?
Of course it is serious. But, I think there are much more important questions to be answered about how the world co-ordinates its productive activities.
So, for instance, food production should be focussed in countries such as ours that can produce most efficiently in terms of emmissions. Steel production focussed in countries that are close to the natural resources, and have the most carbon efficient technology etc.
If we hobble our own food production, then the slack will be picked up by other countries that are much less efficient, and the overall problem will be worse.
I didn't ask if you thought CC was serious, I asked if you understand that it's the worst crisis we have ever faced, it's right here right now, and we have a shrinking window in which to act to prevent catastrophe.
Your ideas on what we should be doing (some good, some not) fit within a frame of we have time to sort things out. We don't. We lost that time, that's what Shaw is talking about, the lost decades. Now we are in the emergency.
While I agree with this theoretically, the devil is in the details. Most food production should be done locally because that is the most efficient in terms of emissions, and energy and resource use. By local I mean backyard, neighbourhood, city farms, close to city farms. I don't mean BAU industrial ag greened up a bit.
We (earth) cannot afford (emissions wise) to be exporting raw materials like milk powder. We have to reduce stock numbers and transition to regenag. Plantain is already in use in organic and regen systems, but the difference is they're not pouring nitrogen onto paddocks. Sustainability models say stop pouring nitrogen in paddocks and regenerate the carbon storing soil.
That's the key difference. One system says pour the nitrogen on the soil and try and mitigate that (BAU), the other says don't pollute in the first place, and rebuild functional soils destroyed by industrial ag. It's the latter that gains efficiency. The former is rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic.
This sounds a bit Biblical (mark of the beast and all that). But, I think a one world government is going to be the only way to force the sort of co-ordinated adaption the world needs. And the way things are going, it is probably going to happen, I expect.
The problem is, it is obvious with all the cheating and fudging, that nations are still motivated by self-interest rather than collective world interest. Depressing as it is, I don't really see that changing with the way things happen now.
In the end, this is a world problem that the world together needs to solve.
It is all fine talking about NZ being a world leader. But, in this sort of international environment, I think the main players don’t give a fuck about what we do, and we end up just cutting off our nose to spite our faces, while trying to feel good about it.
Actually, the main players, or at least the billionaires, do give a fuck what we do. That's why they are apparently buying bolt-holes here.
Lifeboat New Zealand (and a few other islands) are already being viewed as places to go after they've finished wrecking the rest of the world.
While we definitely should not cater to the 1%, we do need to make sure NZ is a place where NZers can at the very least, survive the worst effects of climate change – and show the rest of the world what is possible.
As James Shaw said, we're already past the adaptation stage – now we must act, or perish.
Actually, Shaw is saying that we have to adapt but we absolutely have to reduce GHGs at the same time. If we don't do the latter we will perish. There is no surviving the worst of climate change, we have to prevent the worst.
My suggestion is to understand that what you just said is a belief set about the future, and that there are other belief sets that serve us better. No-one knows what is going to happen. We have historical instances of big change happening fast. If we position our beliefs in change being next to impossible, it becomes very hard to create the change we need.
For instance, it's possible that we reach a social and/or political tipping point (eg from activism alongside big adverse weather events) where suddenly a number of small/medium countries adopt a transition plan. Others follow and once there are enough they start boycotting the economies of the big players. China, already politically ahead of the US in terms of change, sees the writing on the wall and begins a fast transition as well. The long decades of work done by the various transition movements means that much of the models are ready to get up and running.
NZ sets up regenag transition pods in every catchment, putting major R&D and tech support in place, and utilising the experience and data from the farms that have previous transitioned. Instead of exporting milk powder, we start exporting models, experience and teachers.
The large supermarket chains get on board quickly (see what they did with ethical egg production in the past year?), and start prioritising local and regenag supply lines. NZ then starts exporting those models and expertise as well.
Change doesn't happen top down. It happens from a strange, unpredictable mix of grassroots and the edge meeting those in the mainstream who have been yearning for change, along with the right opportunity.
We can either give up now, or we can prepare for the tipping points and make sure things fall in the right direction. Cyclone Gabrielle is such a tipping point for Auckland, and probably much of NZ. We can talk about how things can't change, or we can talk about how important it is that things change right now and that we make better decisions going forward.
I'm not sure the information out of China can be relied upon I think the is quite a difference between what is said and reality.
A you tube search 'China spray paint green ' brings interesting content from various sources
we could say the same about clean green NZ.
This is why I think you don't understand the seriousness of the situation. It appears to be saying that we have a choice. That we can choose not to transition and we get to keep our nice things. We don't. If we don't transition, we lose everything.
I'd like you to explain what the point is of keeping our current lifestyles for another decade or two, but with the loss of that becoming increasingly in our faces, and losing it slowly over time until there are major collapses. Instead of trying to prevent that.
I think change is being forced on us through factors other than the climate. For instance, declining demographies that will completely upend the consumerism model that has fueled economic growth over the last century or so.
For me, I see climate change as just one of a number of serious issues that threaten the viability of the human species. Other issues I see at a similar level are the parabolic decline in fish stocks, ocean pollution, declining rain forests etc. So much to solve.
I think we can reduce a lot of the pollution and C02 gasses at the same time, by moving away from buying junk from the likes of China. We need to be purchasing much better quality products that last us longer. And products need to be economically repairable. I signed the Green petition on this btw.
So far as our agriculture is concerned, there is serious research being done on how to reduce agricultural emmissions. I think this is where we should be heading. I think it will be much more effective if we are leaders in this aspect rather than trying to curb our production.
For instance, research on how to reduce methane emmissions from our livestock:
Wonderful stuff. If it works, at scale, in real-world conditions, it will provide some much-needed breathing room.
However, I'm not willing to gamble the future on an "if".
So, I'll repeat my mantra:
The entire climate response must be composed of technologies that exist, at the scale required, now.
If we were only ever going to rely on current technologies we would still be stuck in the stoneage.
Need drives innovation, and there certainly is a need so far as the environment goes.
that’s not what is meant here. Innovation will continue, hopefully in a useful direction. But we can’t rely on tech that doesn’t exist at scale yet because we don’t have time for that to be developed. We also don’t know if the predicted tech will be useful or not. We are so short on time we have to work with the tech we have. We already have that tech, we know it works. The barriers aren’t technical, they’re political and social.
can you please give a short explanation of what declining demographies is? I'm not watching a long vid so I can parse your first sentence.
Sure. That guy, Peter Zeihan, is geopolitical scientist who has written a number of books about societal trends and the effect on economics and other factors going forward. He is highly respected, and well worth a look at. His videos are quite entertaining, and easy to watch.
He looked at the demographic trends for a lot of countries. Many countries are in fairly rapid population declines.
He explains that when our societies were quite rural, then children were seen as a cheap source of income. Therefore, people tended to have a lot more kids. However, increasing urbanisation has led to children being seen more as expensive nuisances, so people tend to have a lot less of them.
A lot of countries in Europe have major demographic issues. Germany, especially, is in a very bad situation.
China is in an especially bad way, especially after 40 years of the two child policy, and increasing urbanisation. It has been recognised for quite awhile that their population has peaked, and will decline over the coming century. A lot of projections have their population halving by about 2100.
But, according to Zeihan, recent errors uncovered in their latest census suggest their population decline could be much faster than that, and that their population may halve by 2050.
These population trends have a lot of significance for climate change. If populations are declining quickly, then emissions are also likely to drop with that.
I meant one child policy btw. I think it was upped to two children over recent years.
NZ ranks ~39th in per capita carbon dioxide emissions – not too bad.
NZ ranks ~4th in per capita methane emissions – not so good.
NZ ranks ~16th in per capita carbon dioxide equivalent emissions – yippee!?
Our "Emmissions" Heft Meer Mmmmmethane
Seriously though, while our food production systems may be relatively efficient at feeding people dairy products and meat, and do contribute to earning our way in the world, they aren't efficient enough.
It seems this iteration of human civilisation is not collectively smart enough learn from the lessons that spaceship Earth will continue to deliver with increasing frequency, and the 'punishments' for not learning the lesson that our collective 'carbon footprint' is too big will be increasingly severe.
It's not rocket science.
Do everything you can now to cut your personal carbon footprint, and I mean everything. It probably won't be enough to avoid the collapse of this iteration of civilisation, but doing anything less certainly won't be enough.
I'm not optimistic that global production can be hobbled, and our (NZ) living standards significantly lowered voluntarily, but there's still a shread of hope that we can learn to live within our means, as opposed to spaceship Earth teaching its smartest passengers the hard way.
What have we learned in the last 3 weeks/years? We really can be dim bulbs.
eventually there will come a time when people are forced to give up their current lifestyles. Some come to it sooner than others. There are people in the NI who are going through this process as we speak, having lost their homes and cars and livelihoods. The trick here is to have alternatives available and visible to them so they don't see only one choice of rebuilding BAU.
eg now is the time to make PT free for people in areas where cars were lost. Get people hooked on it, make it easy, increase services, help people figure out how to make it work in their lives. Set up car pools so that when people really need a car, there is one available and they don't have to go and buy one.
eg put incentives in place for all new builds to be smaller, have passive energy design, have space for food growing, have grid tied solar where appropriate, have rainwater harvesting tech, and so on.
This kind of thinking is not the norm, but there are so many opportunities arising out of this tragedy.
dim bulbs. remember the dim bulbs within the national party around the same time moaning and bitching about carbon taxes on agriculture. don brash lying his way through election campaigns and denying climate change, that clown from Taranaki Shane Ardern driving a tractor up the steps of parliament.
fast forward and the ground swell crowd must be amongst the dimmest of the bulbs around atm. dim bulbs like that need to pack up their protest and jack off. any dim bulb politician also needs to jack off. farming leaders need to immediately back he waka eke noa as a first (but no means the final) step to cutting emissions. dim bulbs like them spent 15 years kicking the can down the road, no more road, no more time. should be pretty obvious. best time to implement something like he waka eke noa was a decade and a half ago, best time we have left is right now.
"If we hobble our own food production"…
We are hobbling our own food production. With floods and extreme weather. And it's only going to get worse if nothing is done.
This is the neoliberal dream of every country pursuing their competitive advantage and markets efficiently delivering optimal outcomes for all, including climate change 'solutions'. But:
I regard the freeloader syndrome as the latest and most sophisticated form of CC denialism. It poses an extreme moral hazard and is very dangerous.
go talk to the farmers and market gardeners who have just seen their yrs earnings washed away, and ask them about being hobbled… and stop repeating the lie about how efficient NZ farmers are . that survey was taken from about ten countries…out of 210 !
A very sound idea – and thus far the most consistently profitable form of aquaponics. Chinampas also offer a low-cost remedy for water degraded by lousy agricultural practices like CAFOs.
It's a strange thing, Tony, and more complicated than we are making it.
Example, our government decides to stop issuing oil and gas licenses. It shuts our refinery. But, to compensate we are now importing much of what we used to produce and so, while our national contribution has reduced, can we really say that we are less responsible than before for our share of global emissions?
Okay, I get it.
BAU until the whole sorry card house collapses around our heads.
The Government did not shut down the Refinery.
It was a shareholder decision, the shareholders being BP, Mobil & Z Energy.
The government may not have shut down the refinery….they did however ignore advice to prevent it and abdicated its responsibility to ensure the nations energy (and by product) supplies into the future.
An example of exceedingly poor planning and decision making.
The better example of exceedingly poor planning and decision making was the government of the day gifting it (plus an additional gift of $80 million) to the petrol companies.
Another example of exceedingly poor planning and decision making is that the refinery only (~95%) processed imported crude, not our own crude.
Yes the fire sale of the refinery was a(nother) poor decision by the Lange Government….the lack of refining of NZ crude is a non issue in normal times but having the ability (which has now been lost0 if needed was certainly one of the key reasons it should not have been allowed to be decommissioned.
There is nothing we can do that will make an ounce of difference. One day NZ governments might wake up.
We should focus on what we can do. Cleaning up our industries, waterways etc.
Sure the focus would appear to be one of more resilient infrastructure. And emergency response and build back capability.
And modernising the economy to the accepted standard (of foreign markets and our inter-national agreements) and with some consideration that we are held accountable for any emissions increase derived from increased population …
I'm reasonably confident that you have a bigger ecological footprint than I do. You should go first with making changes, I'll wait until I believe that you have done enough and then I will make changes in my life.
This is how change doesn't happen.
From evidence as well,
The top 5 countries amount to 58% of GHG emissions. The other countries 42%.
If we don't act because we don't know if the top 5 countries will act in time, then if the top 5 countries do act, it won't matter that they did because the other 42% didn't.
Everyone has to change right now.
To say that NZ shouldn't change is basically saying 'ok, let's keep our comfortable lifestyles for another decade or so and then we're going to lose it all as ecologies and societies collapse'. (If you don't believe it's that serious, then please do some reading, this is mainstream thinking now).
And before anyone starts on with BAU is the only way to have good lives, it's not. We are so incredibly privileged and we can use the privilege to transition to a different but still good life. At some point that will no longer be possible.
Also, it's the global economy innit.
We are responsible for China's emissions each time we buy something made in China. If we transition away from that, we help China drop its GHGs. Likewise, all the places buying our industrial dairy.
China has every reason to act in reducing their own greenhouse gasses considering they are suffering severe effects from climate change themselves.
And, I agree, buying from China makes us hypocrites. By outsourcing manufacturing to China, the west has effectively shifted amount of its own carbon profile to China as well.
I am for manufacturing being relocated to regions that can manufacture through renewable means rather than coal.
so BAU global economy, just greened up?
The mechanism for that is a carbon tax in international trade to advantage production using clean tech. The money raised used to supply green tech to third world nations.
I agree. There should be a large focus from the west in helping countries such as India move away from coal generation as quickly as possible.
"…I would be all for us going hard if the larger nations in the world who could make a difference were" tsmithfield
Why should we do anything about the climate \when other countries are polluting way more than us?
All the countries about New Zealand's size put together, some estimates say account for up to a quarter of global emissions.
Are you saying all the countries about New Zealand's size should keep on polluting because other bigger countries are polluting more?
I can remember Donald Trump when he was Potus, referring to the fact that China's emissions were polluting way more than the US, made the same argument as an excuse to do nothing.
This is poorly worded as the government has a domestic responsibility to deal with the effects and an international one to be part of the solution.
Here is what I think farmers should be doing.
First of all, what they shouldn't be doing is turning highly productive land into god-awful pine forests.
What they should be doing is:
These sort of measures will make us truly world-leading, and force other nations to follow suit in order to remain competitive.
Very easy to turn our unproductive land back to forest, can basically just fence it off and let it do its thing. Won't take long for colonizing species to appear the rest is just time.
Just about got it, Cricklewood, but there's the threat of fire, so we need to intelligently assist natural regenerative processes, by adding fire-resistant "waves" of trees and other such wise-interventions, to speed-up the process and ensure its success.
I am not sure that gorse and Wilding pines are what I had in mind.
Gorse acts as a nursery crop for native restoration (given the right conditions).
Wilding pines are a resource.
As Robert points out, we can tend to tip things in the better direction.
In addition to native forest on the hills, we could be doing mixed food forestry and agroforestry. Lots of choices.
Gorse and wilding pines have minds of their own, Smithfield, and will seek to fill the gap. Drenching them with herbicides is the standard response, but wrong. Harnessing their transformative agency is the way forward; make friends with them because they will be calling the shots before too long 🙂
Not a Pine fanboy, but pines do suck up a lot of carbon over a 20 year period.
In the scheme of things they're short lived and better than nothing. Native's will eventually grow through and dominate just some places will take much longer than others.
"Turn unproductive and marginally productive land (e.g. steep hills and difficult to access areas) into indigenous forests…"
I wonder if they could explain how that turning might be done?
"turn unproductive and marginally productive land into indigenous forests, not ugly pines" will you be paying the shortfall of earnings for this idea? in one post you say nz farmers shouldnt sacrifice their earnings to help mitigate climate change, than in the next, say nz farmers should sacrifice their earnings by abandoning land. make yr mind up!!
I'm supportive of subsidies to farmers who transition to regenerative models (with some caveats).
The problem is at the political level in particular. Remember how the Greens had that plan on planting shit loads of trees? The incoming Labour government in 2017 gave that to NZF and they fucked it up because they just don't understand what regenerative is.
no, the problem is that many people have this idea in their heads, .pines bad, natives good. their are many species of introduced trees that are useful, not only pine. too many farmers leap from idea to idea. kiwifruit, olives, alpacas, pines, dairy, etc,etc. you will find the most successful farmers have 2-3 earning streams that they stick to. not leaping on the latest bandwagon.
agree about the pines bad/natives good thing.
However, your comment is a statement about what is good for farmers, not necessarily for the planet. Hence industrialised dairy.
Banks and farm advisors need to take some responsibility too.
no, my comment is about reality. im not promoting anything. trying to point out what actually happens. yr idea about subsidizing farmers to switch income streams will piss every other business in nz off. THATS reality.
Pinus radiata is a conifer. Kauri is a conifer. Totara and kahikatea are conifers.
What I can't understand is that farmers over many parts of the country are concerned about productive farmland being put into pines solely for carbon credits, and rightly so. Nearly everyone thinks this has gone on long enough and should be stopped, so why do councils keep on issuing resource consents for new applications?
And right on cue:
Given we've just been through a storm the likes of what we have not seen in decades, one would hope that the silly-billies who believe these conspiratorial fruitcakes will fade away.
the hardcore aside, ostracisation doesn't work. The silly billies are part of our communities, they're not going to fade away. They work in our essential services, do volunteer work that is important in civil emergencies, have kids in school. We have to find ways of being in relationship with people that think differently from us. Transition will happen at the community level or it won't happen at all.
Nope. They're mobilising, communicating with each other furiously and are determined to interfere with governance at all levels 🙂
what should we do with them then, if we want them to disappear?
Do you have, weka, any experience or knowledge of, instances where run-of-the-mill, "soft-core" conspiracy theory-entertainers have been moved from their "harmless" position on issues such as anti-vaccination/ant-Jacinda, anti-UN etc, and have rejoined the rest of us (sensible folk 🙂 in our balanced view of the world.
In other words, can they be deprogrammed and have you evidence of it happening?
I definitely have experience of people who were in the grey area, eg who believed some conspiracy theories, and who have stepped back from falling down the rabbit hole. I've also seen people online talking about this process, either in themselves or in people they care about.
I also know people who are otherwise good people who don't vaccinate, who have what I consider weird beliefs (eg about the UN), and who are a normal parts of my community.
In my comment above I wasn't talking about deprogramming. I was talking about how we can get along with people who think quite differently from us, because community is where transition will have the most power.
What I'm asking you is what you want to see happen to those people. Anne wants them ostracised but hasn't said what that means exactly. What is your thinking?
Weka – do you think those people you know of, who "were in the grey area" are vulnerable to drifting into the next iteration of that grey area?
As to what I want "to see happen to those people", nothing should happen to them, but to society itself. The trauma that's expressing itself through these dysfunctional beliefs and actions has to be resolved. If you'd like to know what I believe needs to be done/to "happen", you'd need to set aside couple of years worth of reading time 🙂
Depends I guess on how their lives play out, but sure, I think there are all sorts of people who might end up being attracted to the next iteration (I also know people who have weird science is god beliefs that I think are problematic for society and I think they are likewise susceptible to their own version of a rabbit hole).
One friend has learned critical thinking skills so I don't think she will end up down a future rabbit hole but who knows? I think stress and trauma are part of it, and we don't know how that's going to progress in the coming years. Maybe we get better at supporting people, maybe we get worse.
I agree, and we probably have a fair overlap in thinking. My response to Anne is part of that. I see ostracisation as a tool that should be reserved for the rare occasions when we cannot resolve things in other ways. Building and maintaining functional relationships is part of resolving the trauma.
one of my theories about what is happening is that the alt parts of the community hold the value of feeling and intuition in a world that is being destroyed by uber rationality and disconnection. They obviously have some problems because they've disconnected from rationality in the process, but I see two sides of the same coin there.
They certainly claim to be the holders of intuition and feeling but I think they've simply left themselves open to manipulation by insincere agencies.
well yes. But as a social dynamic I think it's reaction against authority and science, and it's not hard to see why at a baseline level when both authority and science have done so much damage. They get the details wrong, but there is an aspect of truth in the rejection of societal norms.
A reaction against … science???
A lot of people distrust science. The left can ridicule and hate on anti vaxxers, but that community holds a lot of experience of medical misadventure and failure outside of vaccines, and holds knowledge about alternatives that science heads say are useless.
Science has been used badly and caused a lot of damage to the environment.
I thought of an example about gut feelings. My sense is that vat protein is a bad move. I can rationalise that with credible argument and evidence if I could be bothered. It’s not that the tech is inherently wrong, it’s that the world view is going to take it down a stupid path.
Many people just understand that some things are wrong. Nuclear power generation is an obvious example, as is genetic engineering. What they might not have are the intellectual tools to make evidence based coherent arguments on that.
An individual with a conviction is a hard person to change.
Applies to us all – anyone can fool themselves.
Perhaps it's a reaction against perceived "weird science is god beliefs". It is easy to undermine trust in authority/science, but to what end?
VFF's science-denying campaigns put me in mind of a Trump 'strategy' for dealing with increasing COVID-19 cases in the US.
Don't measure GHG emissions and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels; pay no attention those fearmongers and their (weird) scientific so-called 'evidence' – you're being "Mask-winked" – FFS!
Is it science you mistrust, weka, or the politics around science; that is, the interpretations and applications for political/economic etc. purposes?
I don’t distrust science Robert, it’s a tool that gets used in various ways and has strengths and flaws. Perhaps reread what I wrote. I wasn’t talking about myself but the communities of people that have tipped into a kind of madness.
and the hard core, people like Alp and co, are definitely not going to fade away. If we ostracise the people that listen to them, those people will move towards them, not us.
Leave them alone & they'll come home? Dunno – dragging one's tail is unappealing.
How many Groundswell protests are planned in the run up to the general election?
Before it's too late people!
NO UTE TAX! WE PAY IT SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO!
So it goes.
How did you get from 'don't ostracise people' to 'leave them alone and they'll come home'? Because I definitely didn't say that.
Thanks, was asking if that's what you meant. I wasn't sure, and now I am.
So, don’t ostracise people, and don’t leave them alone.
Suggesting a way home might work – some of them do seem a bit suggestible.
I'm really not a fan of taking someone's argument, altering it and then putting up an argument against the alteration. A simple request for clarification would have worked better.
Apologies; my mistake. What do you think about suggesting 'a way home' that wouldn't involve admitting (to themselves, if no-one else) that they might have made a mistake?
Just because, in my experience, it's sometimes difficult to admit a mistake.
I'm not sure I agree with the 'a way home' framing. It implies they're lost and we are the good humans. The people I know that are in VFF etc are good humans as well. They have some strange ideas and some ideas I agree with. I don't see them as other in the way that say Anne does.
I agree about it being difficult to admit a mistake. Another reason not to ostracise people.
Was thinking less good/bad, and more irrational/rational in (some of) their views. I know good people who hold some views that I consider irrational (unsupported by evidence), just as they consider some of my views wrong, and that's OK – we can (and do) agree to disagree, or simply avoid contentious issues.
The view that making NZ "ungovernable" is an acceptable goal is a red flag, imho. In these increasingly unsettled times, VFF is an 'agree to disagree' distraction at best, and at worst – who knows?
Onerous times for freedom heads with weird freedom-is-God beliefs.
Take your stinking evidence off my freedoms you damn dirty science!
sure, re rational/irrational. But I find a number of science head views irrational as well /shrug. I don’t think those people should be ostracised either.
Sure – anyone can have (some) irrational views. No-one is immune, science heads, non-science heads & anti-science heads alike /shrug.
That's why I prefer to rely on current consensus expert science head opinions and advice (when available) on matters scientific. And, as I've previously indicated, those opinions are not always correct – consensus opinions evolve – good things take time.
Still, I'd like to believe consensus expert opinions in the natural sciences are (mostly) rational (evidence-based), be they right or wrong.
Of course the "silly billies" are part of the community. Of course there needs to be a relationship with them. They are not the problem. We all know people who have fallen fall some of the crap but they will see sense in time.
I recall the conspiracy theories around Global Warming (at it was then called) that were rampant in the 1980s and 90s. The silly billies of that era have gone quiet. But we have a new breed of far more dangerous individuals whose mindsets are well beyond the "we must have a relationship with them" mantra.
This is an all out ideological and political war for them. They want to smash society and introduce what, to my mind, constitutes alt-right type anarchy. They use words like lies, evil, treachery, conspiracy and 'world domination' to describe conventional society and their democratically elected governments when they are the ones who are guilty of committing these traits.
These individuals are beyond reason. You cannot negotiate with them. They are working with their overseas counterparts and being financially supported by them. They need to be smashed before they smash society as we know it.
what do you mean by smashed specifically?
Destroyed… before they succeed in destroying society.
There are parallels with the fascist movements of the 1930s. In that case it ended with a world war. It is not outlandish to fear the consequences could be similar when you look at the problem from a global perspective.
This time around Climate Change will be the catalyst. These hard core groups are almost certainly getting ready to sow the seeds of CC related hatred and fear among the populace at large.
Firing squad? Hanged? Please explain how you see this being done.
If they persist with their fire-raising in the face of evidence that the world’s on fire, by treating them as the arsonists they are.
How exactly do you propose we 'destroy' these 'individuals'? Perhaps the same methods used by the 'fascists' you referred to? Or would soviet style gulags better suit you?
Edit: apologies Weka, our comments crossed.
It’s not up to me or you or anyone else to come up with an appropriate ‘method of removal' . We have public and private entities who have the task and professional training to make those decisions. Then its up to the government to ensure they are put into practice. If a you disagree with them you can cast a vote against them.
Your response suggests to me you are part of the problem!
ok, so you want certain people removed from society and you are happy for the state to arrange that. You know that such states often don't allow free voting right?
Perhaps "rendered impotent" would be a better term, with the rider that I don't mean with a scalpel 🙂 By "impotent" I mean, ineffectual or unable to effect what ever action they seek, given those effects are of the fascist sort. That would involve extinguishing their communication lines, essentially. Telegraph etc. is what keeps their kettles boiling. Isolated from that poisonous talk, our fellow New Zealanders would be absorbed back into a diverse society that is buffered against crack-potted-ness by its multitudinousnesness…
if Anne doesn't mean killing them she needs to say.
In terms of rendering impotent via restricting access to social media, we'd need some new laws. What would work that couldn't be used against other people by a future government? We know that in the UK the right wing government is moving to restrict climate activists.
Who is talking about killing them for God's sake. Robert has got it right.
"Render them impotent". And in case that gets misinterpreted I don't mean in the physical sense. Take them to court if necessary and have them exposed for what they are… traitors and fascists. That way gullible people will be less likely to listen to them.
thanks for clarifying (it’s the only way we can know).
Take them to court under what laws? Or what kind of laws?
big corporate and government have the technology to cut their access to social media off. .the problem is , the handwringing that will bring from other sideline commentators on social media. like most things , it comes back to the rights of the individual v the benefits to the many.free speech v hate speech, etc.. which is the same old argument…….
Pretty depressing thought, the answer is more conversation, patience and a degree of tolerance. Pushing people further underground and towards real extremists and deep into the margins of society is doomed to failure… you'd hope we'd learned that lesson from Covid.
This is true of freedom protestors generally. I don't think this will work for the leaders.
Definitely won't work on the leaders, using the example of covid the people behind the likes of counterspin, vvf and others only gained 'power' when we pushed a whole heap of people towards them. Now covid is yesterdays news they're desperately looking around for another cause to keep that sense of power.
If we can avoid marginlizing people we basically starve the the truly mad and or bad of followers. With no audience they're left screaming into the abyss and very easy to keep an eye on them.
Tolerate the talk?
Just say , "No".
They'll know where you stand.
Sure. Matching theirs.
Put your stake in the ground. Invite them to speak to that.
@weka – "I don't think this will work for the leaders."
Our leaders must talk with their leaders.
And that talk must be televised.
You said these people need to be 'smashed', and when asked to clarfiy you did so by saying they should be 'destroyed'. Now you're saying they should be removed. Sounds like the stasi to me.
I suspect Anne means to destroy the structure of groups, the behaviour of individuals and so on, rather than extinguish the lives of people.
Thanks Robert. Of course that is what I mean. I've been commenting on this site for years and nowhere have I ever condoned killing people. Some people seem to lose perspective sometimes on this site.
I despair when I hear and see, imperfect language. This happens scarily often 🙂
Tease it out, I say, and be patient!
"They need to be smashed before they smash society as we know it"
One must be very, very sure that we have the power and ability to "smash" them for if not they will return the favour in spades.
Indeed very talk of "smashing" and "reprogramming" or "destroy the structure of groups" forewarns of the intent to remove them as an opposition.
Remember that they have been taught to "punch back twice as hard"!
The very use of "facist" to describe them shows the realisation that it id belived that they are prepared to go to any lengths to prevail.
Dangerous times ahead …. ???
That is precisely their intention. And they will continue to lie, to deceive, manipulate gullible people and threaten the lives of those who confront them. They are already doing it on an individual level and they will do it on a collective level if they are allowed to gain sufficient power over their communities. That is why they are trying to get onto local councils and various boards. That is how the fascists of the 1920s and 30s started and look where that ended.
They are NOT an opposition. They are ideological thugs and they will use Climate Change to foment hatred and violence across the globe. They are extremely dangerous and must be "rendered impotent"… somehow.
As the Democrats in the US are finding out; any methods used against those we oppose will be used doubly against us when they gain the least hint of a majority. Not only used against us but used with hatred and revenge as the driving force. Always must be very careful what we wish for as the resultant push back can be catastrophic …. and utterly without mercy.
100% with James.
Also, the entire climate response must be composed of technologies that exist, at the scale required, now.
I'm totally cool with research on other technologies, just not with relying on them.
You know that feeling where you have seen a problem get worse and worse and you're at the point where you just want action, and you are perfectly happy to pay money and make sacrifices, because making those sacrifices will feel better than this awful slow-death feeling of the future slipping away?
this is such a good point.
I've definitely got that feeling of can we just act now to end the misery of being in this suspended state.
This should be the Green line this election. "Taking away this slow-death suspended state of misery will cost, and costs feel bad, but nothing feels worse than helplessness."
New Zealand is getting off lightly. We have more rain! Meanwhile huge parts of the world are becoming uninhabitable deserts. Climate wars and mass migrations are coming next.
Yes, I think a lot of China will be desert soon.
Reading through this and looking at the picture, it seems it's the perfect time to, as Shaw says, do both (decarboning and resilience). Intense afforestation and wetland restoration would trap and slow water during heavy rainfall, increase biodiversity and trap carbon.
The problem is that the benefits from it are shared and long-term; unlike logging or farming, a small group can't make money quickly off it.
The change of attitude is crucial. How do we do that, especially pitted against the rich and selfish opportunists like Seymour?
"wetland restoration " x 1000 please.
I'm just going to helicopter in with a logic delivery.
1. Climate adaptation and decarbonisation will require resources.
2. Money is how we allocate resources.
3. Rich people have the money, that's what that word means.
4. Ultra-rich people have ultra-money, that's what those words mean
5. Time is short, and the trickle-down effect does not work, and even the people who (incorrectly) think it does work don't think it works quickly.
6. Therefore: tax me a bit more, tax people with 15 houses quite a lot more, and tax the ultra-rich out of existence, and use that money to allocate resources to the climate emergency.
To steal a line from twitter: If you have a billion dollars, you get a plastic medal that says "I won capitalism", we name a dog park after you, and your tax rate is 100% for the rest of your days. You'll just have to get by.
Great proposals; we don't need the super rich, in fact we can't sustain them. I'd set the bar a little lower than $1B but a greed tax is a good start.
Planet can't afford billionaires. It's basically a gamble that they will turn out to be nice people who use their influence for good, and the odds are terrible because "being nice" and "thinking about others" is just not a characteristic that helps you become a billionaire.
Don’t worry about the rich! They’ve got helicopter access to their lifeboat bunkers in NZ. A few local roads being out or suburbs flooded won’t worry them!
cant remember the exact figure but one of the gov departments put a value on the average kiwi( think it was for accident purposes). at that stage yr average kiwi was worth 3 mill(lifetime earnings etc). .whatever. ..if you are worth 100 times the average kiwi, should you contribute 100 times the average kiwis contributions(tax)?finland now has a sliding scale of fines depending on yr worth. something to think about.
The floods are made worse by our misuse of land, colonial history, and the capture of Aotearoa's farming industry by corporate interests with no regard for the cost of their polluting ways
No Right Turn:
The guys at NoMinister (with whom I rarely agree) lay out the problem starkly
“If you’re still a climate denier or a climate minimalist… | No Minister (wordpress.com)
Not saying I’m guna mistrust BP’s chart, but lies, damn lies and statistics…
And yeh I thinking electric cars are mostly bunk because of generation issues in most places.
And most importantly…
The laws of physics do not give a shit about me and my preferences, and owe us nothing, not even our continued existence. Eliminating fossil fuels is not an "expectation". It's a required condition for the survival of any kind of viable civilization. And that's all.
Oh and to add to this, the chart also assumes that no efforts will be made around energy efficiency (which isn't true) and that the human population will continue to grow and consume in the same way (but population is peaking or decreasing, and peaking/decreasing the most in high-consuming countries).
So it's a graph that is produced by proven liars that is riddled with false or dubious assumptions.
We’re hitting stage four of the four stage strategy:
Worked for me.
Enter https://youtu.be/nb2xFvmKWRY into the address bar and when you play the video it renders as https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nb2xFvmKWRY&feature=youtu.be
The latter address will embed.
Priceless. thanks newsense.
I've always loved that cynical humour: Frontline, The Thick of It, The Games.
The Honest Govt crowd are currently highlighting the response in Oz. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrkE_VaMD4k
It's not encouraging.
It is striking. in this most poignantly timed post, after 120 odd comments not a single mention of what we/I have/will sacrifice/change.
Apparently it's the farmers, the Chinese, corporations, the Government, etc that need to change….
It's because we're well past the point where individual efforts will help at all. Of course they will inspire, prove concepts etc, but the practical changes must come collectively, from the top down, bottom up and every which way. Now.
see I argue that individual actions are even more important than ever. If individuals aren't willing to make changes now, then we won't vote in governments that will regulate the changes that will affect individuals.
I mean fair point, but it's not controversial.
Less meat and dairy
Less travel generally
Shorter, more local supply chains
Not having an expectation that all foods from all parts of the world in all seasons are instantly available
Going back to the situation where long-distance travel was a rare and significant life event
And I suspect many people are making such changes.
"And I suspect many people are making such changes"
Well, if that's true, corporations, supermarkets and governments will follow.
In line with yr suggestions about shorter supply chains, local food and less travel, I suggest mandatory labelling of province of origin on all fruit, vegetable and meat products in supermatkets.
There is no need for meat grown in Otago to be sold in Taranaki.
this is the kind of thinking we need. Elegant solution that creates future resiliency and that is relatively easy to implement.
totally agree gsays.
Personally I would like to ban all utes and SUVs from urban traffic (with caveats). We could do a lot to make our roads safer and more resilient by incentivising lighter vehicles and fixing PT infrastructure.
How the fcuk did NZ go from the Toyota Corolla as our #1 selling car, to the fscken Ford Ranger.
I find it hilarious that people think that liberal democracy can get us out of this mess, when liberal democracy got us in this mess.
Eh? It's a lot deeper than that. Go back to the industrial revolution. Or even the invention of agriculture. It doesn't matter what form of government, it's the entire machinery of civilization and its thirst for fossil fuels that got us into this mess.
Liberal democracy, with strict environmental regulations, and huge shifts in infrastructure, might be the only way out. Capitalism with its reckless drive for short term profit needs fundamental reform into a more holistic social model.
And there it is.
This economic model is fundamentally flawed and killing us. Yet you defended it.
Capitalism, as embraced by liberalism can't be reformed. And to think it can be it this stage is fundamentally woolie thinking.
Look at the reports, in the last 20 odd years we have tried to reform it, and it has got worse year on year. Putting aside the fact scientist have been under reporting as not to freak people out – until now. Each year the banks, insurance and venture capital keep investing more and more in the fossil fuels.
And nothing, not a damn thing is being done to stop it.
The electric car industry is a joke.
Thinking that tech break through will save us, is a forlorn hope at this point.
Liberal democracy, authoritarian, totalitarian and theological systems are all fubar at this point. All are in bed with capitalism one way or another, and capitalism is going to literally kill us, our children, and our children's children.
But sure hold onto your ideology, I’m sure it will give you comfort.
I dunno how you read that I am a fan of capitalism into that, lol. I'm a fan of democracy and local solutions. That means socialising all capitalist enterprises (currently run as dictatorships) and reforming their governance into a democratic model. It also means major land reform and repeal of private ownership of all land, and returning to a Māori communal model.
But all of that is still just tinkering. Because the laws of thermodynamics are coming, and we are in for a phase change that will upset all current models of civilisation. The most resilient societies are those with social cohesion, and that means the end of the selfish sociopathic system of wage slavery that is Capitalism.
The deniers, some with obscene amounts of backing money..at stake, are quite desperate to keep their place. We need to ..cut them off. Show them for what they are. The death of our Planet Earth. Literally.