Dunedin climate consultation meeting

Written By: - Date published: 9:54 am, May 22nd, 2015 - 77 comments
Categories: climate change, global warming - Tags: , , , ,

Last night over 200 people crowded in to Dunedin’s Glenroy Auditorium for the Dunedin meeting in the government’s emissions consultation process. I (r0b) will write up my notes for a post over the weekend, but here is the reaction of one person who attended. She describes herself as not a political person – just worried about our future.


Tonight I attended a meeting in Dunedin to discuss, with representatives from the Ministry of the Environment, NZ’s position for the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris.

There were over 200 people in attendance and for more than two hours many took turns to ask questions and to speak about climate change. They spoke about what they want for our children, for future generations, for New Zealand, for the South Pacific and for the world. A child spoke, as did many students, researchers and a great grandmother!

To paraphrase one speaker, I am not a scientist, I am an ordinary woman, who has been feeling emotional about climate change for a while. It was an emotional meeting and I felt in turns angry, frustrated, helpless, very sad, and disillusioned. I also felt privileged to be in the company of so many knowledgeable, passionate people.

In summing up, one of the MoE’s reps said that he had seen hope this evening. It must have been a brief sighting, maybe I was blinking or wiping my eyes because I missed it. Thank you to all the people who came tonight, thank you to all the people who spoke tonight – we all agreed that we are not doing enough and that we have to begin now. I am sad and tired because I don’t think our government is going to listen or to take our submissions seriously.

The hope thing – I suppose there was hope at the meeting tonight, because, in spite of all the inertia and non-action of the past, people still fronted up to speak and to support the speakers. I suppose had there been no hope, no-one would have turned up at all.

77 comments on “Dunedin climate consultation meeting”

  1. weka 1

    Thanks for this first hand report. There will be no meetings near where I live so am grateful for the people who can attend. Well done Dunedin on 200.

    I love that you are emotional. Emotion is one of the things we need now, people who can speak from their hearts.

    “I am sad and tired because I don’t think our government is going to listen or to take our submissions seriously.”

    They probably won’t right now, at least not as much as we want, but the more of us that take CC seriously, the more they will have to listen. Right now it seems more important to me to get people to listen to each other, and to gather up the people who want to do something who can also stand up and be counted. Then we can take it to the people who represent us and demand that they do represent us. 200 people in Dunedin is a good part of that.

  2. Sirenia 2

    Everyone who cares needs to make a written submission. It is the only way to record our concern.

    • weka 2.1

      Here’s an easy way for people to something immediately (emphasis added),

      TAKE 5 MINUTES TO HELP FIX OUR FUTURE

      For the first time in six years the Government is asking New Zealanders for feedback on what New Zealand should be doing about climate change. They’re consulting on the commitments they will present the rest of the world at the UN climate summit in Paris this November.

      This is our chance to call for a plan to Fix Our Future. Take a few minutes to add your voice by submitting below.

      It’s easy to have your say. Just fill in your details and tick all the points you agree with.

      Personalising your submission will really add weight to it so please add your own thoughts and comments at the end of the form.

      For more information about the consultation you can read the Government’s discussion document and watch a short video here.

      http://fixourfuture.nz/

      • weka 2.1.1

        and this,

        The Big Ask is a call to change that, by implementing a new law that will hold our Government to its promises and ensure New Zealand has a credible plan for climate action.

        We are calling for a Climate Change Act to sign carbon emissions targets into law, and establish an independent Climate Commission to provide expert advice on climate policy and hold the Government accountable.

        resources at the link

        http://www.generationzero.org/thebigask

  3. dukeofurl 3

    ” They spoke about what they want for our children, for future generations, for New Zealand, for the South Pacific and for the world. A child spoke, as did many students, researchers and a great grandmother!”

    Consider the other debate the government is running with $20 mill, they too are asking ‘what we stand for’

    But you can see where they think the public opinion matters !

  4. Reb 4

    One question, one answer, that would convince me that man-made climate change is real;

    Where in New Zealand can I go, right now, and see the effects of man-made climate change first-hand?

    Not a graph, or a model, or an ‘adjusted’ temperature record. Actual, real effects that are changing the country, the city, the neighbourhood I live in. They must be everywhere, right? The flora and fauna of the countryside changing right in front of my eyes.

    Because here’s the thing. I just don’t see it. Where is it? Where can I see dramatic evidence of climate change? Like the Canterbury plains (where I live) becoming lush and green year round, Taranaki being hammered by drought year after year, and frequent winter snows for Auckland? Oh, what’s that, the effects of man-made climate change are a bit more subtle than that? Like a few more frost free days a year for Canterbury for example? How then, do you prove that such subtle changes, which are completely within the bounds of natural variability, are fully attributable to AGW and aren’t from natural ‘climate change’, which has been going on since the Earth got an atmosphere?

    So, where do I go, and what will I see that absolutely cannot be the result of natural climate change?

    • Capn Insano 4.2

      Well, there was this record drought here;
      http://hot-topic.co.nz/extremes-report-2013-nz-drought-and-record-aussie-heat-made-worse-by-warming/

      The problem, as I see it, is when you look past the variability [weather] you see the underlying trend which is a rise in average temperatures over time and this is happening [as far as I know] while we are in a solar minimum; we are not getting extra input from our sun. Nor does there to be any sustained increase in volcanism. What we are seeing is rising atmospheric CO2 levels, what natural processes could be causing this I wonder?

      • Reb 4.2.1

        So, before the 1950’s and human industrial CO2 emissions glaciers never shrunk?

        They’ve grown and retreated throughout human history, and well before then too.

        This is what fascinates me about the whole argument. You look at that picture and it convinces you that our CO2 emissions are warming the planet and causing the glacier to retreat. I look at it and go, wow, a glacier retreating. So what? This would happen regardless of any extra CO2 emissions from us.

        A glacier retreating does not prove to me in any way that an extra few parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere are making the slightest difference to our climate.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.1.1

          That’s probably because you haven’t considered the atomic structure of CO2, although I suppose you may not have sufficient cognitive ability to understand it.

        • weka 4.2.1.2

          Fukk off denier. We’re well past the point of debating whether it’s real or not, and all you are doing is putting your signature on the doom petition.

          I’d really encourage the commenters here to shut this conversation down. It’s a manipulation and just ties up people’s energies so they can’t take action. The glacier links are good and enough, and there are swathes of information on the webs for Reb to get their questions answered (assuming they want answers, which is a pretty big assumption). We don’t need another long debate about what is real. We alread know. Time to do something about it instead.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.1.3

          “They’ve grown and retreated throughout human history”

          How would you know? Ah, yes that what the Paleo Climate record says. The one you deny.

          Fuckwit.

      • Reb 4.2.2

        “The problem, as I see it, is when you look past the variability [weather] you see the underlying trend which is a rise in average temperatures over time and this is happening [as far as I know] while we are in a solar minimum;”

        But, the problem is the past temperature records themselves, which are are under constant revision and adjustment. Our very own NIWA altered the raw data from its stations, which showed a trend of 0.05 degrees C per century, to a trend of 0.9C. Why? Why didn’t AGW, which is going to change NZ and the world as we know it, show in the raw data? And the BOM in Australia has a record of similar ‘adjustments’, which is why I am reluctant to accept any of that information as fact.

        We are actually in a ‘double peak’ max for the current solar cycle, it;’s just a very low cycle compared to recent cycles, which have been amongst the most active recorded. Could they have been the natural process that lead to (real) temperature increases between 1980-2000?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.2.1

          How would you have the first idea what the sun is doing: everything you know about it is derived from the same sources that tell us AGW is real, which makes you a fool and a hypocrite.

          • weka 4.2.2.1.1

            Any chance we could not have a long drawn out debate with a denier?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.2.1.1.1

              “Do not feed the tr*ll” doesn’t work, as Stephanie has pointed out. I’ll keep it brief 🙂

              • weka

                I’m not suggesting DNFTT, I’m suggesting shutting the conversation down. You can do ridicule pretty well 😉

        • RedLogix 4.2.2.2

          Our very own NIWA altered the raw data from its stations, which showed a trend of 0.05 degrees C per century, to a trend of 0.9C. Why?

          You understand perfectly well what the explanation is. And yet you will continue to pretend you do not know.

          You do realise farce is only funny the first few times?

        • McFlock 4.2.2.3

          Maybe you should sue NIWA to make the data say what you think it should say?

          Oh, wait…

    • jaymam 4.3

      Reb, yes many glaciers around the world are retreating, and a few are not. Apart from that, there’s really nothing serious happening with the climate. This is not the place to discuss climate, as you will be attacked and ridiculed or censored. Oops, too late! Find some other forum.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 4.3.1

        Yeah, no debate regarding Paleoclimate or the atomic structure of CO2 available here. Well, unavailable to fuckwits, anyway.

  5. Shane Gallagher 5

    I was at the meeting – and a few more comments.

    The standard of informed opinion was simply astounding. There was intelligent, incisive comment from every single speaker. It made a mockery of the content of the consultation document. As one speaker asked “Just who did the ministry consult?” – it was very clear that the members of the room could have written a vastly superior document.

    The number of young people there was amazing. They are worried and scared for their future.

    Aaron Hawkins, DCC councillor for the Greens, commented, tearfully, that he doesn’t know if he and his wife should have children because of the terrible world we were leaving them. It resonated with me massively because I just had that conversation with my fiancee. It was a scary conversation. I wonder if Boomers ever had that conversation knowing that THEIR parents were busy trashing the planet. Gen X and Y are getting angrier and more frightened by the inaction of their parents and grandparents, who are kind of in charge at the moment.

    But I have a son already – he wants a little brother or sister. What future are we giving them?

    The hope is the passion, intelligence and problem-solving skills of humanity. The fear is the current world leadership is too busy hanging on to their power, greed and wealth and thus damning us all to a terrible future.

    • John 5.1

      There’s little chance of solving climate change, because even those campaigning against it continue to blame everyone else, while putting out 400% more emissions than the baby boomers parents ever did.

      • Shane Gallagher 5.1.1

        Citations?

        Oh – that’s right, there won’t be, because that is all rubbish.

        • John 5.1.1.1

          There’s plenty of evidence that the per capita carbon emission in NZ have been doubling every 30 years, so 60 years ago that’s quarter what it is now on a per capita basis.

          Most greenies I know have far bigger emissions than me, and very little different to most people.

          One had a go at me at a recent party for my choice of recreation – trail riding on a motorbike. They went tramping – much more environmentally friendly they said.

          Except just they used more fuel getting to just ONE Fiordland tramping trip than I use in my bike in a whole year. I’m apparently the evil polluter though.

          But they blame the government, motorcycle riders, and everyone else except themselves.

          And I come across exactly the same attitude again and again.

          Hypocrites.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1.1

            How can they be hypocrites when the whole business of polar moments of gaseous molecules is a Physics conspiracy?

          • Alethios 5.1.1.1.2

            I hear you John. I think a lot of people want to identify as being ‘green’ or environmentally conscious without actually taking the actions necessary to reduce their own footprint. I don’t know if it’d agree with your assessment that younger generations output 400% more than their parents, just because emissions are now 4x higher, but that’s by-the-by.

            Forgive me for saying this, but I’m not sure your attitude is particularly helpful. I don’t know the details of your personal circumstances, but wouldn’t educating these people be more effective than being adversarial? As you can see from the comments here, people rarely listen when they feel under attack.

    • weka 5.2

      “As one speaker asked “Just who did the ministry consult?” – it was very clear that the members of the room could have written a vastly superior document.”

      I’m starting to think that the govt has seriously underestimated how people are feeling about this.

      Re having children, I think it’s time we started having conversations about choosing not to have children as a valid response to CC, not just out of concern for that child, but as a mitigation strategy. This is heavy stuff, because we’re not supposed to challenge the personal freedom to have children, it’s very taboo, and we don’t support people to form families in other ways. But I think there are questions here we need to think about. If I had a child in NZ, where we are in one of the better situations to survive what is coming, is the footprint of that child over its lifetime going to mean the death of a child elsewhere in the world? Or the death of many children? Or the death of an ecosystem? At what point will we give up our personal freedoms and take responsibility at a personal level but in a global context?

      I don’t mean to have a go at you Shane, and would welcome discussion from people in your situation and generation about how to do this.

      • Shane Gallagher 5.2.1

        We are all taking personal responsibility.

        But you are missing the point. The problems we face are systemic. Children are not the problem. We can reduce the birthrate by doing very positive things; like educating ALL women to the age of 16 (at the very least), by providing tertiary education all over the world, by providing clean water and good healthcare throughout the world… etc, etc. It is something that needs to be addressed at a system level – and that can only really be done by governments.

        Taking “personal responsibility” is neo-liberalism’s evil green twin. Personal responsibility can only take us so far – ie. not very far at all. It excuses the systems of power and control from taking action and places all the responsiblity onto the shoulders of relatively powerless individuals and local groups. It allows the system to perpetuate and continue destroying the planet. Every time you mention “personal responsibility” you are doing the work of our neo-liberal overlords. Everyone who loves the planet works hard at doing their bit – but it makes very little difference. Until the system is changed we are doomed to failure.

        • weka 5.2.1.1

          Yes, the problems we face are systemic. Some of those systemic problems stem from first world privilege. The solutions you put out in your first paragraph don’t address that, they put the onus on countries elsewhere. My questions were around why can we expect other people to limit population but not us here in NZ.

          “It is something that needs to be addressed at a system level – and that can only really be done by governments.”

          Not entirely, but yep they have a big role. Do you think the NZ govt should look at how many people the NZ landbase can sustain over the next 100 years and then introduce legistation to ensure sustinability? Do you think the NZ govt should legislate around birth rate dependent on emission rates, or GHG levels?

          “Every time you mention “personal responsibility” you are doing the work of our neo-liberal overlords.”

          Only in the minds of people whose ideology says that personal responsibility and collective responsibility are mutually exclusive. Personal responsibility makes me vote, makes me an activist, makes me do the right things. That in no way undermines my ability to think about the collective or act for its benefit.

          Have to admit though, I’m confused as to why someone who takes CC seriously can’t see the problem that having children in NZ might entail (apart from the obvious one about that child’s wellbeing). It’s like you are saying it won’t make any difference, but isn’t that the line being run by the neoliberals about GHG emissions?

      • Colonial Rawshark 5.2.2

        I think it’s time we started having conversations about choosing not to have children as a valid response to CC, not just out of concern for that child, but as a mitigation strategy. This is heavy stuff, because we’re not supposed to challenge the personal freedom to have children, it’s very taboo, and we don’t support people to form families in other ways.

        IMO we have to gradually and civilly halve the human population over the next 100 years. Otherwise we’re going to end up like bacteria numbers crashing on an over crowded petri dish.

        • weka 5.2.2.1

          Yep. Still very hard to have conversations about population degrowth, let alone how that can be done.

          • Colonial Rawshark 5.2.2.1.1

            Indeed. And population degrowth will be, excuse the metaphor, the final nail in the coffin of consumption led economic growth.

            • weka 5.2.2.1.1.1

              which begs the question of why so many otherwise capitalism smashing lefties are uncomfortable with it.

              • Bill

                For me, it’s not about being ‘uncomfortable with it’, so much as ‘can’t be bothered with red herrings’.

                AGW isn’t a population problem.

                • weka

                  My original point wasn’t so much about population as western footprints and ghg emissions. Don’t see how having children doesn’t figure into that. It’s a finite planet.

                • Colonial Viper

                  economic growth and energy consumption growth is driven by population growth

        • Macro 5.2.2.2

          You are right of course but the main problem is not in western countries – or in developing countries – but in the underdeveloped countries with high infant mortality rates and low life expectancies. In these countries the predominant sector of the population are young adults. Uneducated women with high fertility rates. Now before anyone jumps on me from a great height for being chauvinistic or misogynist please understand that this is from well documented research into the demographics of population growth.
          You can see a graph of the main areas of population growth in the world (as of 2014) here
          http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=24
          The comparison by country is also enlightening
          http://www.indexmundi.com/g/r.aspx?t=0&v=24&l=en
          What this means is that we can withhold having children in Western countries – by all means – and we are as can be seen clearly in Europe and even NZ with a birth rate less than 1. But it will not make much difference because the main area of population growth is in Africa, Latin America, and the middle east.
          When those countries are allowed to develop and educate their young women and girls and provide them with more life choices than they have at the moment – only then – will we begin it see a reduction in the continual growth of the human species

          • weka 5.2.2.2.1

            It’s the first world countries that have made the biggest contribution towards AGW. I understand the connections between over population and gender equity pretty well. However it strikes me as BAU for the West to say, we can keep having babies, those poor countries over there have to stop, and meanwhile our GHG emissions are out of control and destroying the planet.

            The main focus on the third world only really makes sense if you believe that those countries should attain first world life styles. But in CC contexts, we can’t afford to have any country living like that. So why are we so averse to looking at our own population?

            • Colonial Viper 5.2.2.2.1.1

              population growth in the developed world is basically over. the next billion people are going to come from the developing world and the third world.

              • weka

                Sure. Maybe I haven’t made my point clearly. Isn’t not having children (in the West) akin to shifting from everyone driving their own cars to using public transport? i.e. these are the ways we reduce our footpring and GHG emissions. And isn’t the a degrowth economy dependent on not having more people who want to consume, as well as changed in behaviour?

                If NZ were going to transition rapidly, it might be different. But we’re not, and I think choosing to not have children is a valid action in terms of CC mitigation, not because of the population but because of the lowering of our footprint (there are also issues around what population NZ can sustain in a post-carbon world, but that’s another kete of ika).

              • weka

                “the next billion people are going to come from the developing world and the third world.”

                What are the footprints of those countries? The developping world is far more of a problem.

            • Maui 5.2.2.2.1.2

              We need to do both, limit the world population and rapidly decrease emissions in the western world. We’ve effectively created the next World War and we’re playing with collective suicide with every single person in the world lives on the line, or the next generation’s.

  6. Bill 6

    I was heartened by the meeting last night.

    No-one sought to trash out the unfortunate bureaucrats who had to front the thing.

    No-one indulged in long or drawn out lectures.

    And every time the ante was upped with regards necessary action, the audience backed the tougher, harder action. (eg – Oil Free Otago had 40% by 2030 leaflets. By evenings end that figure was agreed to be a minimum demand and understood by more than a few attendees to be simply inadequate)

    • weka 6.1

      That is good news indeed, esp given how short notice people had to organise. Sounds spontaneous and people already on board.

  7. adam 7

    For weka – it is Bill Maher so the be warned language is far from PC.

    So from the 4.49 min mark till 8.50 a very interesting round about denying climate change.

  8. Heather Grimwood 8

    Yes, a fantastic meeting last night….I would have thought 300+…and would have been an overflowing Glenroy had advertising been better and venue not changed suddenly. I don’t think any in knowledgable audience needed to learn, but came to have their collective voice heard. May it be so!
    It would seem to me that we need a cross-party group together with specialists with the real expertise to be set up quickly, so that our voice and actions have a leading and meaningful impact on the world scene.

    • Bill 8.1

      “… we need a cross-party group together with specialists…”

      Thing is Heather, that kind of structure has been in existence for decades. The politicians know we’re in dire straits. The scientists know we’re in dire straits.

      Here’s a nice wee quote from 2009 that illustrates what I mean…

      “Our position is challenging enough, I can’t go (to Copenhagen) with the message that 2°C is impossible – it’s what we’ve all worked towards”

      Ed Miliband – UK Secretary of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change – (2009)

      • Colonial Rawshark 8.1.1

        Let’s get another well paid expert panel together to write up another comprehensive strategy document in time for discussion and consultation some time next year

    • weka 8.2

      Thanks Heather. I think the more that citizens organise, the more change we have.

  9. Heather Grimwood 9

    I mean an official working party to draw up, implement and present our answers. We have never had that. I have been closely interested in this issue for decades, both as teacher and activist. In particular we need the expertise of real specialists , few very likely to be sitting in Parliament. Trust me.

    • Colonial Rawshark 9.1

      The thing is Heather we already know exactly what must be done.

      We have to get the NZ economy off fossil fuels, we have to halt industrial big ag, and we have to make NZ self sufficient in the areas that de-globalisation and energy decline are going to hurt the most. All the while making society a better place to live. (And we’re going to have to change our definition of “better” too).

      The real problem is that current arrangements, although they are rapidly coming to an end, suit our leadership class just fine, because they are the ones who benefit most from current arrangements.

      • Corokia 9.1.1

        The consultation document is so lame, they state that we have few low cost ways to reduce our emissions, that is such crap!

        They go on about ’emerging technologies to reduce transport emissions’- but electrified rail/trams/trolley buses are old technology, why the hell can’t we have those AS WELL as private electric cars and increased use of biodiesel (from algae & waste)
        Nowhere do they mention moving freight out of trucks and onto electified rail.
        No one EVER suggests reducing air travel and flying fewer tourists into the country.

        As for agriculture-
        here is the definition of agriculture- “the science or practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide food, wool, and other products.” Figure 2 on page 9 of the discussion document shows agriculture as 48% of our emissions- and agriculture is pictured as nothing but animals. It appears that growing crops isn’t part of NZ agriculture.
        Nowhere is there is it even contemplated that we could REDUCE stock numbers!
        For our own health we are supposed to eat mostly plants, surely we should use agricultural land to grow mostly plants. And not just ploughing up the land to create huge monocultures, but permanent tree crops and other techniques to increase soil carbon and grow more food for local consumption.

        National has announced they want to double agricultural exports by 2025, how on earth can that be in any way compatible with reducing CO2 emissions? While people like Shayne & Aaron and their partners agonise over whether or not to bring children into this world, those dumb, greedy right wing bastards just plan to make the problem worse!

        • weka 9.1.1.1

          Yep, and it’s not like there aren’t other ways for NZers to make a living. National’s path is all about the greed.

  10. I suppose had there been no hope, no-one would have turned up at all.

    Hence the reason I didn’t bother going to the Wellington meeting, it would have been total waste of my time.

  11. Pat 11

    as noted population reduction (substantial) is the only true chance this planet has ….the question is whether it will be by design or disaster. Personally Id back the latter as I see no possibility of a concerted agreed method of population reduction amongst the nations of this world….does anyone truely believe that the same peoples who cannot even agree on relatively simple carbon reduction targets are capable of negotiating and implementing organised negative growth, both population and economic???…sadly it is simply not going to happen.

  12. Heather Grimwood 12

    Hope you’ve made a submission though!!!

  13. Att Shane
    http://www.vhemt.org

    I’m really sorry everyone, but the only way a child alive now is not going to suffer/die from CC is if they weren’t born in the first place.

    ————————————————————————————-

    It doesn’t matter if you have no children or 10.
    For us to stand a snow balls chance, we would need to remove maybe 1,000s of gigtons worth of carbon from the environment, like yesterday. We would have to bring the C02 level down to maybe 280 – 300 ppm within say 10 years?
    Humans can not scale up anything to reverse what we have set in motion, over 1 billion combustion engines spewing out tons and tons of crap is to big a mess to clean up, and according to Cowspiracy meat production is equal to about 51% of human emissions, and the cars = to about 13 – 14 %.
    The problem is bigger than a meteorite hitting us, or the East Siberian Arctic Shelf totally on fire. Because it was things like that, in the past that turned the planet into +6 degrees above what it was in 1850, and even then it took thousands of years, unlike our 150 year ‘leap’ to 400 ppm C02 and nearly 2 ppm CH4

    • Colonial Rawshark 13.1

      Going to be an interesting next 50 years

      • Maui 13.1.1

        One hell of a hangover for Capitalism to deal with or for most of the unwitting participants at least. Capitalism will just get busy building it’s own biosphere (maybe somewhere near antarctica) and take a truckload of oil and slaves with it and keep on carrying on.

        • Corokia 13.1.1.1

          Don’t think there is much soil in Antarctica, might be a bit of a problem for those who imagine they can re-locate to the poles.

          • Pat 13.1.1.1.1

            no need to go that far south….theyve already set up camp in Queenstown

      • Corokia 13.1.2

        Why does Robert remind me of Marvin the robot in hitch-hikers guide?

    • weka 13.2

      Cowspiracy is a very poor source. Afaik it doesn’t cite its sources, and it presents some pretty biased information (it’s basically fundamentalist vegan propaganda). If you are getting this so wrong Robert, it does raise the possibility that your other information is off.

      • Robert Atack 13.2.1

        Weka
        If that’s your real name?
        I will do a bit of research into Cow, I’ve only just discovered it. Some of their other numbers seam a tad OTT, ie 660 gal (?) of water in a 1/4 pounder ? Maybe not*
        I’m not sugesting veganisium or anything will save us.

        *The USGS estimates that it takes 4,000 to 18,000 gallons of water to produce a juicy hamburger, depending on conditions that cows are raised in. The water doesn’t go directly into your burger; rather, it is used to feed, hydrate, and service cows.Jun 20, 2012
        All The Water It Takes To Produce A Burger | Co.Exist …
        http://www.fastcoexist.com/1680051/all-the-water-it-takes-to-produce-a-burger

        [lprent: It is a pseudonym. But it is just as meaningless to me as a “real” name is.

        It is meaningless to use that attribute in a discussion unless you want me to note you as a person who I may have to ban later for the stupidity of even implying that “real” names are worth a tin shit. In your case I only know that you are a actual person with your name because I talked to your brother-in-law once. I’ve read some of your posts on your blog a few times, and I seem to remember reposting on once.

        On the other hand, Weka has been disagreeing with me for years. I know far far more about how she thinks than I know how you think.

        This is your warning – and read the about and policy. ]

  14. just saying 14

    When did the conservation ministry adopt the slogan ‘working towards prosperity’ or words to that effect?

    I couldn’t quite believe the slick clip they presented which promoted inaction and therefore environmental destruction on a massive scale on economic grounds.

    Capitalism is like Hal the cyborg on 2001 a Space Odyssey. Perfectly programmed, so it/he had to kill the crew.

    • Colonial Rawshark 14.1

      “When did the conservation ministry adopt the slogan ‘working towards prosperity’ or words to that effect?”

      a couple of years ago now

  15. RedBaronCV 15

    I went to the Wellington meeting – shifted to a larger venue and again all the speakers were standout and being Wellington knew more than the panel.
    Main themes were:
    -why have we been fobbed off with Civil servants who were then asked to take a hefty message back to ministers. ( sledging Groser & Bridges was popular) I almost felt sorry for them.
    -economists who had run modelling like the NZIER projections in the report slated it as only one case that had deeply flawed assumptions
    -panel asked as to whether officials had put in forestry & agriculture and been instructed by the Minister to take it out or whether they had never put it in. Lots of panicked civil servant whispering but no clear answer.
    – and very strong points about how we can’t buy our way out of this one and doing nothing is not an option.

    And in the budget the emissions trading costs have gone through the roof – S46m to $114m for 2015 and more thereafter– time to get carbon serious that’s a big chunk of change

Links to post

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • New digital service to make business easy
    A new digital platform aims to make it easier for small businesses to access services from multiple government agencies, leaving them more time to focus on their own priorities. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Minister for Small Business Stuart Nash ...
    5 days ago
  • Million-dollar start to gun collection events
    Million-dollar start to gun collection events  Police Minister Stuart Nash says a solid start has been made to the gun buyback and amnesty after the first weekend of community collection events. “Gun owners will walk away with more than ...
    6 days ago
  • Praise after first firearms collection event
    Police Minister Stuart Nash has praised Police and gun owners after the first firearms collection event saw a busy turnout at Riccarton Racecourse in Christchurch. “Police officers and staff have put a tremendous effort into planning and logistics for the ...
    6 days ago
  • New Police constables deployed to regions
    Seventy-eight new Police constables are heading out to the regions following today’s graduation of a new recruit wing from the Royal New Zealand Police College. Police Minister Stuart Nash says the record high number of new Police officers being recruited, ...
    2 weeks ago