Daily Review 07/12/2015

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 pm, December 7th, 2015 - 45 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

TPPA no way

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

45 comments on “Daily Review 07/12/2015 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Bill 1
    7 December 2015 at 6:10 pm

    What the f*ck is this reporting on Radio New Zealand that has Groser w*nking about rejection of a 1.5 degree warming limit and the whole thing being wrapped up as a decision being made as to whether warming should be limited to 1.5 degrees or 2 degrees?!

    That kind of utterly idiotic reporting ‘goes through’ why?

    Are we to believe that these clowns can just decide on what level of warming they will create?

    • Anne 1.1
      7 December 2015 at 6:29 pm

      It beggars belief doesn’t it Bill. A local example of the imbeciles who are in charge of this planet. Talk about slithering backwards into the dark ages.

      And to add insult to injury look who is the new Climate Change minister? Paula Bennett. This ignorant woman wouldn’t know the difference between a humidity reading and a dew point reading. The scientists in this country must be clutching themselves in horror and disbelief.

      • Richard Christie 1.1.1
        7 December 2015 at 7:26 pm

        <i The scientists in this country must be clutching themselves in horror and disbelief.

        Agreed, it’s an utter ‘fuck you’ to the science community.

      • Jilly Bee 1.1.2
        7 December 2015 at 8:25 pm

        I agree Anne – a total WTF moment. The Nats simply hate scientific and rational solutions to their ideological clap trap. By the way, I always read your comments with interest. I have been a follower of politics, particularly of the Labour Party for many a long year since the 1957 election when at the age of 13 I witnessed my parents’ absolute joy at the election of the Labour Government led by Walter Nash and I know that the M J Savage government gave my parents back some dignity when my dad’s business went belly up during the Great Depression and he had to, with his partner, walk away from a fleet of trucks, probably because they weren’t connected to the farming industry. I became a member in 1967 and have renewed my membership over the years, with a few breaks, particularly when I was a parent of a young family and had other things to think about. I rejoined when Rob Muldoon became the PM and worked bloody hard in the Piako seat in 1975 when Helen Clark stood as the Labour candidate. I could go on, but I do try to join some dots when you delve into the inner sanctum of what has happened to you over the years, but always come up short. Keep those comments up – I enjoy them.

        • Jenny Kirk 1.1.2.1
          7 December 2015 at 8:51 pm

          + 100% Jilly Bee

        • Anne 1.1.2.2
          7 December 2015 at 10:31 pm

          Thank-you Jilly Bee. There are so many lessons to learn from the past and that’s why I tell parts of my story because these things have a habit of repeating themselves – albeit not necessarily in the same way.

      • Rosemary McDonald 1.1.3
        7 December 2015 at 9:38 pm

        “The scientists in this country must be clutching themselves in horror and disbelief.”

        Some of the scientists in this country are out there looking for fossil fuels…they work for GNS, who has partnerships with the oil and gas companies.

        http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/nights

        “9:10 OUR SEARCH FOR OIL
        a new research programme is underway which intends to improve the chances of finding oil and gas accumulations in New Zealand’s sedimentary basins – with Richard Sykes GNS Science petroleum geochemist ”

        http://www.gns.cri.nz/Home/About-Us/Partnerships/Our-Clients

        Global warming? What global warming?

        SNAFU

        • Anne 1.1.3.1
          7 December 2015 at 10:36 pm

          Hi Rosemary McDonald.
          I should have made myself clearer. I was meaning Climate Scientists and Meteorologists – and related NIWA researchers.

    • mickysavage 1.2
      7 December 2015 at 6:37 pm

      Yep the question that had been asked “but it is predicted that the effect of current proposals will result in a 3 degree increase in temperature. Why are you being to insipid with your proposals?”

    • weka 1.3
      7 December 2015 at 7:33 pm

      got a link? Or what time it was on?

      • Bill 1.3.1
        7 December 2015 at 8:04 pm

        All main ‘on the hour’ news bulletins.

        • weka 1.3.1.1
          7 December 2015 at 9:55 pm

          It’s changed a bit now. At the start the BBC say how poor countries want rich countries to support them to develop via renewables and to pay compensation if their economies tanks due to CC. Nice summary. Then the bit about Australia wanting a 1.5C cap instead of 2C, that Pacific nations want NZ to support this and Groser saying that’s not likely to succeed. Don’t know if he means it can’t be done or if he means no-one will agree to it 😉 That’s all he says though.

          Then it’s about Paula Bennet taking over the CC portfolio and how Key thought about giving it to Bridges but couldn’t because it would conflict with Bridges’ Energy portfolio. Fuckwits and imbeciles.

  2. arkie 2
    7 December 2015 at 7:13 pm

    Also, it’s aspirational anyway…

  3. weka 3
    7 December 2015 at 7:44 pm

    Uruguay gets 95% of its electricity from renewables. Renewables account for 55% of its overal energy (including transport) compared to the global average of 12%. Its commitment this week is an 88% cut in carbon emissions by 2017 compared with the average for 2009-13.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/03/uruguay-makes-dramatic-shift-to-nearly-95-clean-energy

    While not every country in the world can replicate this model, he said Uruguay had proved that renewables can reduce generation costs, can meet well over 90% of electricity demand without the back-up of coal or nuclear power plants, and the public and private sectors can work together effectively in this field.
    The Paris climate summit at a glance
    Read more

    But, perhaps, the biggest lesson that Uruguay can provide to the delegates in Paris is the importance of strong decision-making. As has been the case at countless UN climate conferences, Uruguay was once paralysed by a seemingly endless and rancorous debate about energy policy.

    All that changed when the government finally agreed on a long-term plan that drew cross-party support.

    • Bill 3.1
      7 December 2015 at 8:29 pm

      I believe that Scotland is looking to achieve a 40% reduction on 1990 levels by 2020. I’d have to check the figures, but the point is that they have hard numerical reduction targets for every year. I think they have managed a 38% drop on 1990 levels to date.

      meh – google search.

      The Scottish Government’s commitments to tackling climate change are set out in the Climate Change (Scotland) Act (2009). This requires a minimum 42% cut in emissions by 2020 (including international aviation and shipping) and defines annual emission targets from 2010-2050. The commitments represent the most stringent reduction targets in the UK.

      https://www.theccc.org.uk/scotland/

      edit – and yes, unfortunately they indulge in the sleight of hand trading bullshit.

      • weka 3.1.1
        7 December 2015 at 9:58 pm

        Are they including agriculture?

        I didn’t want to look to closely at the Uruguay targets in case I found more bullshit. Sign of the times when nobody can be trusted on this. I thought the bit about cross party talks was interesting though.

  5. Wayne 5
    7 December 2015 at 7:54 pm

    Well Uruguay might claim such a reduction but is it credible? Surely that is a valid question.
    As with NZ the majority of their emissions will be agricultural based. What are they going to do about them?
    As for the rest they will have to ban just about every diesel or petrol powered vehicle. That won’t happen.
    By all means criticise the NZ target, but at least it is actually achievable. Having said that more could be done. But a reduction of 90% on 1990 figures by 2030 is completely unrealistic.

    • Draco T Bastard 5.1
      7 December 2015 at 8:02 pm

      But a reduction of 90% on 1990 figures by 2030 is completely unrealistic.

      Actually, NZ could probably drop below 1990 levels quite easily. The problem we have is a few people are concerned that they won’t make any money out of the transition if we do it rationally and so they stand in the way of that rational action.

    • Macro 5.2
      7 December 2015 at 8:05 pm

      In the meantime Groser has overseen NZs emissions increase by 10% in his time as Minister for CC, and has put in place zilch as a means to achieve any reduction. Pull your head out of the sand Wayne – everything your mates say about CC is simply flannel, and hot air, and adds to the steadily climbing atmospheric temperature.

    • Bill 5.3
      7 December 2015 at 8:10 pm

      If we, along with every other OECD country, don’t drop to zero energy related emissions by around 2030, then you know what Wayne? We’re fucked.

      This ‘achievable’ NZ target is exactly like standing right in the path of the no. 8 bus and being too stupid to move.

      • Colonial Viper 5.3.1
        7 December 2015 at 8:16 pm

        Pretty sure we are going to experience a 90% drop in emissions by 2050 regardless. But what does Wayne care? He’ll be past caring about anything by either date.

        • Bill 5.3.1.1
          7 December 2015 at 8:42 pm

          Sure. Maybe. But a 90% drop from what level and with what temperature rise either locked in or being experienced?

          That’s the problem with 90% by 2050 type targets that have no year on year reduction targets…they allow policy makers and politicians to do fuck all. That, and the fact they are sold as science despite the fact that the problem is one of accumulative total emissions, meaning thse aspirational targets have absolutely no basis in science.

    • Jenny Kirk 5.4
      7 December 2015 at 9:00 pm

      To Wayne – Uruguay has many attributes which are similar to NZ – a small-ish population (3.4 million); helpful natural conditions (good wind, decent solar radiation and lots of biomass from agriculture); and the will to make it work.

      Unfortunately, Wayne, you support a government which does not have that will. They’re being led by a man who is a puppet of the multi-nationals and who do not have a care for the future of either the planet, or the people on it. They live only in the present. (And its unfortunate for us as well that so many voters are unthinkingly blind to what and who our puppet actually is).

    • Murray Simmonds 5.5
      8 December 2015 at 6:31 am

      Yep Wayne – doing nothing is absolutely achievable. That Nats have had plenty of practice at that.

  6. Draco T Bastard 6
    7 December 2015 at 7:57 pm

    Several Syrian army soldiers dead, dozen injured after Western coalition strikes in Syria – reports

    So, when does Assad tell the Western Coalition to fuck off? After all, they are their illegally and as an invading force.

    • Colonial Viper 6.1
      7 December 2015 at 8:18 pm

      Russia can turn on a no fly zone over the most populous parts of Syria immediately, but enforcing it would mean shooting down American and British jets…and then it would get messy.

  7. Wayne 7
    7 December 2015 at 8:01 pm

    Actually it is a 88% reduction by 2017 on 2008 figures. In other words in 2017 Uruguay expects to have only 12% of the levels of emissions it had less than 10 years previously.
    They must be ignoring agriculture, and even then I would suggest it can still could not be achieved.

    • Bill 7.1
      7 December 2015 at 8:20 pm

      Energy emissions account for most of the worlds emissions…by a long, long way (about 80% on a global perspective).

      NZ’s bullshit about only accounting for (say) 1% or 0.1% of global energy emissions is arguing that since Manchester (or wherever) only accounts for (say) 1% or 0.1% of energy related emissions, then Manchester and every other fucking place in the world need do nothing.

      It doesn’t matter whether NZ or anywhere else only contributes 1% or 0.1% or whatever, the world must be at zero by around 2050 with ‘the west’ hitting zero by around 2030….for a mere 50/50 chance of avoiding 2 degrees C of warming.

    • Pat 7.2
      7 December 2015 at 10:03 pm

      you can waste your time debating the numbers Wayne but you continue to miss the salient point….

      Uruguay was once paralysed by a seemingly endless and rancorous debate about energy policy.

      All that changed when the government finally agreed on a long-term plan that drew cross-party support.

    • weka 8.1
      7 December 2015 at 10:21 pm

      Labour are making noises about it. The Greens already have it in policy.

      1. Universal Basic Income (UBI)

      The Green Party supports a full and wide-ranging public debate on the nature of UBI and the details of a UBI system, and government funding for detailed studies of the impacts of UBI. The Green Party will:

      Investigate the implementation of a Universal Basic Income for every New Zealander.

      Repeal the much amended, complex and cumbersome Social Security Act 1964, and replace it with a new and clearly written Social Security Act with a view to:

      Establishing a two-tier benefit system consisting of:
      a universal base rate; and
      add-ons for specific circumstances or additional needs, such as dependants, disability or chronic illness.
      Providing discretionary third-tier assistance until such time as the needs of all beneficiaries can be met through the proposed two-tier system, including restoring a discretionary Special Benefit in place of the highly regulated Temporary Additional Support.

      https://home.greens.org.nz/policy/income-support-policy

  9. Draco T Bastard 9
    7 December 2015 at 9:02 pm

    Fighting Climate Change: From Dairying to Daring

    Agriculture accounts for about 44% of New Zealand’s total emissions. Cows are the biggest problem. This causes much hand-wringing, but, we are told, there is nothing we can do about it. Except to reduce the numbers of cows. And reducing the numbers of dairy cows cannot be done?

    If farming is the problem then you reduce the amount of farming.

  10. Pat 10
    7 December 2015 at 10:24 pm

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/feb/28/serco-shares-rupert-soames-aggreko-chief-executive

    “Rupert Soames, the grandson of Winston Churchill, took over running the company early last year. He repaired relations with the UK government, which had barred Serco and its rival G4S from new government outsourced work, and pledged to turn around operating performance by cutting costs and getting out of peripheral businesses.”

    would be great to see their revenue further reduced by a ban here too.

  11. ropata 11
    8 December 2015 at 12:16 am

    Saw this great comment from Yanis Varoufakis on twitter, apparently he did a great BBC interview recently… see the linked image

    .@yanisvaroufakis says austerity is a cover-story for class war. #bbcqt pic.twitter.com/zBHlY04WQG— BBC Question Time (@bbcquestiontime) September 24, 2015