- Date published:
1:11 pm, July 1st, 2016 - 151 comments
Categories: activism, climate change, global warming, sustainability - Tags: extinction event, generation zero, global warming, zero carbon act
Yesterday Generation Zero released their proposal for a Zero Carbon Act:
The climate crisis is growing more urgent by the day. To realise the goal of keeping global warming to well below 2°C, as agreed by the whole world in Paris last December, we need to reduce carbon pollution close to zero by 2050. But here in New Zealand our carbon emissions are still growing.
Since Generation Zero started five years ago, we’ve been pushing for action towards a zero carbon New Zealand. But in those five years, our government has done nothing to get us on track to meet this goal. They’ve set meaningless emissions targets and have no plan to meet them.
The problem is – our politicians are focused on the election cycle and ignoring critical long term problems. It’s our job as citizens to push our politicians to do what is necessary and hold them to account.
We need a new law to put New Zealand on track to zero carbon by 2050: a Zero Carbon Act.
We’re not going to wait around for our politicians to do the right thing any longer; we’re going to draft a bill ourselves with help from experts and collaborators, and work to get all political parties to support it and pass it through Parliament.
We know this is possible. The UK’s Climate Change Act was passed in 2008 with cross-party support after a huge public groundswell and it has been instrumental in reducing their greenhouse gas emissions.
Check out the page for more information and to donate or volunteer. Thank you, Generation Zero!
Go you good things!!! What a brilliant idea. Let’s stop F – ing around and just do it ourselves! Something we can ALL get behind 😀
Eventual 3 deg C warming will be guaranteed by 2030 if we don’t change course immediately. Reducing GHG emissions to zero by 2050 will do nothing unless these massive reductions occur in the next few years.
If you have a better plan CV, please post it. By plan I don’t mean “we should do x”. I mean an actual plan with the how.
Of course I have a better plan. Don’t support steps which risk 4 deg C warming. Burning massive amounts of fossil fuels every year until 2050, will guarantee considerable additional warming through the 2080s and 2090s and beyond.
What do we do instead?
move the date from 2050 to 2030. Discount any possibility of negative carbon technologies.
OK. Do you have a plan showing how this can be achieved?
Sure. Move ahead with Gen Zero’s plan.
OK. I thought you had ideas beyond those in the post. No worries.
Ask them. it’s their plan.
what happened to yours from a few weeks ago?
Still sitting around somewhere…tbh a 2050 date is not credible. Its the date you set so that no one in authority today has to lift a finger before they retire.
We will be around 480ppm CO2 by 2050.
central has to be a carbon fee on fossil fuels of say 50c/Kg of CO2, increasing 20c every year until 2050.
$500 per tonne (that’s your 50c per kg, yes?) will do nothing. the studies have been done. (Anderson and Bowes Larkin again). They worked through the scenario of an approximate $500 per tonne on aviation fuel (about 6x any currently proposed level of carbon tax and well over 10x the current price of carbon post Paris) and for that tax to land immediately.
The cost of flights would go up by about 25% per ticket. In other words, most people who fly would just fly on.
Meanwhile, take the 50c per liter and bang it on at the petrol pump for haulage companies and commuters to pick up, and prices in the shops go through the roof while only poorer people are pushed off the roads.
@ Pat. Maybe you’re confusing my undertaking to put up some posts with CV? If that’s the case, they’re in the pipeline. Know how hard it is to take ‘a world’ of info and compress into a meaningful post given word constraints?
I remember your post as well (and look forward to both) but am referring to the following….
“I am preparing a post about a thought experiment that I would like Standardistas to consider over the next few days.
This isn’t that post. This is the warm up.”
A-ha! I’d forgotten about that.
James Hansen believes that an international carbon fee and dividend implemented by the top few economies in the world would be a major step ahead.
Remember how the NZ government thought that punitive taxes on tobacco would be really good central tool to help achieve a “smoke-free” NZ by 2025?
That, like the necessary one for carbon emissions, was a 15 year year plan. It was backed by huge public health programmes . It was also backed by fairly intrusive law changes. And most people bought into it as a damned fine idea.
Things to consider.
Tobacco use was already on the wane before 2010.
Tobacco was already an expensive product.
Cheap alternative delivery systems for nicotine were and are available (vapourisers)
And NZ will not be smoke free by 2025 – the whole thing is stalling.
I’ll read the Hanson piece, but it’s been fairly well documented and demonstrated that taxes and whatever other price mechanisms form the land of the haruspices, only ever have marginal effects – and the carbon reductions we need are not marginal.
the carbon fee is not supposed to simply change consumer purchasing patterns like a cigarette tax. It is also supposed to sway entire corporate and central/local government business cases.
If the true societal cost of fossil fuels was actually priced in, the entire economy would start transitioning away from it ASAP.
Definitely not saying that it would be the only tool in the toolbox though.
So CV let’s stop ALL farming,driving cars,any burning of anything,all industry of any kind.
We will still burn.
The only way out is to wipe out the entire northern hemisphere. Easy as!
We actually have to spend a huge amount of money and effort to develop climate change adaptation infrastructure.
By the way, are you under 50? If so, you will likely see some of the worst effects of climate change come to fruition.
Do you even appreciate what ‘discounting any possibility of negative carbon technologies’ means trp?
There is no “plan” to show how something is omitted from deliberations – it’s omitted.
Um, that actually would be a plan, Bill. Plans usually include both ins and outs. I was kind of keen for a moment to see if there was some substance to what CV was saying, but as usual, there wasn’t, so I gave up.
More shitty back handed personal barbs TRP?
Christ! I know people don’t like it when it ain’t all roses, but…
Okay. 2050 is way too late. 2050 for the entire world being at zero (from energy) works for an outside chance of dipping below +2 degrees. But for that to have any chance, NZ along with other Annex 1 countries would have to hit zero (from energy) by about 2030.
Them’s the facts as best as they can be discerned by those within the science community that aren’t hanging on the coat tails of the wee guy with the pointy hat and the magic up his sleeves.
NZ can get to zero by 2030. And yes, I’ll put the post up. But the type of approach required simply won’t be adopted by any party in the NZ parliament. They all want to use various pricing mechanisms to bring down emissions and pricing mechanisms absolutely will not deliver the reductions that are needed.
From the link,
The climate crisis is growing more urgent by the day. To realise the goal of keeping global warming to well below 2°C, as agreed by the whole world in Paris last December, we need to reduce carbon pollution close to zero by 2050. But here in New Zealand our carbon emissions are still growing.
For the people that think those figures are not enough or that their plan won’t work, here’s a suggestion. What Generation Zero are doing is a call to action. We need this urgently. So don’t slam them for not being radical enough, or naysay them. Instead put up some constructive commentary/critique about the figures and offer support as well.
Sitting on the internet and slamming the people who are actually doing something about CC is not going to effect change. Responding with support and affirming actions, while taking it further (i.e. add to what is being done) will build momentum for change.
The suggestion is simple: the date 2050 should be moved forward to 2030.
Congratulations on your ‘working together’ rationale. Labour already has that intention with the addition of specialists co-opted from outside Parliament, but can’t activate until elected.
As a great-gran of 5 2/3, and for all children, I wish you every success, and will be 200% behind you.
Hi Heather, just note that Labour refuses to swear off coal mining and oil drilling.
Hi CV. Maybe raise it with them. After all, they do say
“we’re going to draft a bill ourselves with help from experts and collaborators, and work to get all political parties to support it and pass it through Parliament.”
Seriously. I’m sure they welcome all well considered suggestions. The public need to get behind this group.
As Bill has figured out, Gen Zero have made some severe mistakes in their analysis and IMO are totally unsalvageable.
Gen zero’s plan could act as a spring board for all sorts of community groups to band together under Gen Zero’s banner – it’s not just central government we need to push, it’s local government too. Some regions may be ahead of others in CC mitigation but others may be well behind (looking at you WCC). I think it’s a positive move of Gen Zero, they may just turn out to be great influencers.
This is a brilliant opportunity for people led change. Bottom up power! Like the British Labour members not tolerating their party mucking around with Corbyn, we can reclaim our power too.
Why would you want people to gather under a banner that’s peddling falsehoods and offering nothing but false hope?
You understand where I’m coming from, yes? I want people to act. I want shit done. But is it too much to ask that what we do or what we demand is grounded in reality?
God help us if we replace government inaction with bullshit that’s turning a blind eye to reality.
Geez I give up Bill. Take it up with them. I’m not a climate scientist. I just see that planet is on fucking fire every where I look, or in drought, flood, tornado, snow storm or sea swell storm, on a level never seen before, and that the seasons I knew so well that guided my life have gone. That I’ve got freaking calendula’s coming up in June that are flowering. That people, animals, plant species and oceans are dying purely from human induced climate chaos.
I just see a burning urgency for people to take over a small number of other people who hold the power.
I get that you want a group to get the basics right, but you did see that they plan the get “experts” on board? So what’s the quibble? Go talk to them. They haven’t even started yet with their “people’s bill”. It will take time to get feedback, and talk, listen and consolidate.
Let’s start somewhere. You know it could be too late if we don’t act together. That wasn’t meant to come out so corny sounding but I’m just sick of us, people, NZer’s, not going anywhere. Give them a chance to get it together.
Don’t give up – no reason to. Just maybe when the snake- oil salespeople offer a panacea, reject it. That’s got nothing to do with climate science and everything to do with common sense.
I know they’re intending to get ‘experts’ on board. I posted on this before quite a while back. (Again, Kevin Anderson runs through the specifics in the reports and the scientists involved – Hanson, Stern and other recognisable names – the vid below.) Almost all climate change experts (the scientists) ‘play the game’ and produce politically palatable reports that the policy experts within the field are happy with because they can then ‘sell’ them to the politicians who then….sit on their chuffs and say something will be done at some later date.
If I get a response from Gen Zero, I’ll share it with you. Meanwhile, the presentation from Anderson…
I should clarify that. The scientists in the field who study and collect data and what not, are doing what they should do. It’s the next step up, at the level where others compile the collected date into reports – that’s where the games unfold. And governments than base policy and inaction on those reports.
Good comment. Dosing something in the right direction is better than waiting for the big gamechanger, where all go, ‘shit now I understand’. We lead, we move in the best direction and keep doing our best. I have come to this conclusion after reading many comments on here. I’m pleased I can actually adjust my thinking – gives me hope lol
Bailing out the Titanic with a tea cup is indeed “something in the right direction” but that’s about where it ends.
It’s even more dangerous if this “plan” convinces people that they can burn fossil fuels as per usual this week, this month, this year, because we’ve got until 2050 to sort an answer.
Basically, Gen Zero haven’t been serious in their assessment of the problem, so you shouldn’t be serious about their resulting solution.
Sure but your way is a dead end. They propose something and you shoot it down whilst offering no alternative. And you shoot it down because they haven’t quite got it right as far you think and they aren’t going far enough. Do you see the absurdity of that position.
Hmm. I think it’s already been said that the premise has to be zero (from energy) by 2030 and that negative emissions scenarios cannot be assumed.
As for land use, it isn’t possible to have zero emissions from land use, so an undertaking to cut emissions by as much as possible has to be the goal there.
Then they can compile a plan to take to government or whatever.
If the goal is going to be zero by 2050 on the assumption of negative emissions tech (and that is their goal and assumption) – then whatever plan they put in place will be inadequate from the perspective of 2 degrees.
From their site –
The evidence says we need to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by around 2070 for a high chance of keeping global warming under 2°C…
Maybe…if a grenade blows up after 10 sec, you wouldn’t suggest someone count to 11 before lobbing it, would you? And you wouldn’t support anyone making that suggestion on the spurious grounds, that at least they’re moving in the direction by suggesting that the lobbing of the grenade is timed!
I don’t disagree with your analysis and I say what then? What do we do if we know all that? We imo do the best we can with what we’ve got not because we don’t know the truth but because we do. Many different ways to do that including not sugar coating the reality but once again I get to, and what then?
Okay. So the best we’ve got (in terms of this thread’s topic) is an org that is calling for inadequate action. What do we do about that? We attempt to impress on said org – given that they have profile and may attract people to their programme – that they really need to base their call and subsequent policy suggestion on the scientific reality – ie, on credible scientific analysis.
Hell. If any shaker within that org reads this thread and clicks any of those three vid links I’ve left in the comments, then it may begin a shift in their position.
But if they hang on to their current position, then (analogously) they’d be as well just dropping that grenade, sitting down and launching into a happy (short) rendition of Kumbaya
“inadequate” is not the word for it. Self deceiving is closer.
Right so you both have NOTHING – which is why no one listens – doomers lol
Sorry -unnecessary bite in my comment.
That wasn’t just unnecessary, but stupid and hypocritical.
What have Gen Zero got? A proposal to do something based on a premise that isn’t taking reality into account. But for some reason you seem happy to not question that…and slate me for refusing to clutch at the straws on offer.
When I write that they could be persuaded to adopt a platform based on reality, that’s not nothing.
When I post links to quality information so that people might better evaluate the proposals of others, that’s not nothing.
When I write posts that attempt to strip away the nonsense that many wrap around the the situation we’re in, that’s not nothing.
And when the post is submitted on how NZ’s entire transport sector can get to zero emissions by 2030 (I’ve been promising it for a week or two now), then although it will be roundly rejected in spite of the fact that it will absolutely work – that won’t be nothing.
And I’m going to be very interested in the reaction of all those on this thread who have advocated clutching at the straws thrown out by Gen Zero.
I’m prepared to give gen’s idea some time. And evaluation is good. If they don’t adjust their proposal in line with your thinking, then what?
Gen Zero’s proposals demonstrate that they are on totally the wrong track. Why would you give them any time at all. Their proposals guarantee 3 deg C warming and probably more. They need to go into the bin and started from scratch, not adjusted.
If they don’t re-align their stance to take reality into account, then as much as they say they are doing something positive, and insofar as people may be tempted to get behind and push on the grounds that they’re doing something positive…
From the perspective of avoiding a 2 degrees future…
Question – What is the difference between Gen Zero and whoever working off their currently proposed base lines and the Government working towards their base lines?
Answer – None
And so the next question is – if you’re supportive of Gen Zero, then are you supportive of the Government’s CC policies insofar as they also are doing something in a positive direction?
If not, why not?
I am very interested to know how it is that these intelligent, educated, young people in Gen Zero have completely missed the boat when it comes to basic climate change facts, as a climate change activist group.
Ok you think their proposal is not in the right direction because it lulls a false sense of, ‘it will help the situation’ when really at best it won’t and at worst it will take money, energy and resources from what could or should be done. Even though the likelihood of something that should be done is almost non existent at this time.
Bill I don’t want the government to do less in regards to cc so I suppose that could mean to some that I support them.
Do i support our refugee quota – no. But I don’t want to see it lower and 100 is better than 10.
In both I want a lot lot more.
More or less. It will crowd out the policy space. By the way, there are a number of effective actions that can be taken.
But what I wanted to say in reply here was something that just crossed my mind, and I was wondering whether it impacted on how people were seeing this Gen Zero thing.
If the issue was (say) sovereignty, then a proposal that stopped short of offering up sovereignty could be supported on the grounds that the matter could be re-visited at a later date. The same holds for anything amenable to incrementalism.
But the tackling of global warming (from a 2 degree perspective) doesn’t lend itself to that framework any more. We can’t ‘go half way’ and then reconsider our position at some later date. We either commit to decisive action, or forget it because it’s a cumulative problem. If we go down some ‘half way measure’ road, it’ll stack up over our heads and be beyond the reach of whatever actions we might think we want to take in the future.
We’ve got one shot. We’ve got about 15 years to get our (‘western’) emissions from energy down to zero and clatter the hell out of our land use emissions. And the best chance we have of avoiding +2 in that scenario, is only an outside chance.
I don’t like that Marty. But I’m fucked if I’m going to support something that will see our last chance slip away on the grounds it was ostensibly ‘aiming in the right direction’ and/or that it allowed people (maybe) to feel a bit good.
The answer, whatever it is, needs to bring down OECD emissions drastically while allowing poor regions a bit more carbon headroom.
Everyone needs to converge on about 3 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year. Poor people need to come up to meet that. Rich people need to come down to meet that.
The righties are correct, essentially. NZ bringing down its emissions alone will do nothing. What we do has to help pave the way for the rest of the world to follow or it will be for nothing.
Everyone needs to converge on 3 tonnes!?
Where the fuck you getting this shite from? Put aside population growth. Call it 7 billion people. At the moment, annual emissions are about 35 billion tonnes, or about 5 tonnes per person.
Current emissions are about 60% above what they were in the early 90s and in the early 90s we were aware that there was a fucking problem.
3×7 billion = 21 billion tonnes of CO2 per year.
So, what you’re claiming is that we need only reduce emissions by less than half ffs! … more or less back to 1990 levels.
(And here you were, giving the impression that you ‘got it’ and slagging off the illiteracy of Gen Zero. Priceless.)
Yes, poor people get headroom and their emissions increase in the short term while ours crash (that’s what we’ve signed up to) , and by 2050 or thereabouts, there can be no energy related emissions. Land use emissions must have been crashed as far as they can go, and whether through re-planting or whatever, that land-use emission total can be brought to amount to net zero.
Going back to 1990 levels of emissions globally (but with western countries effectively dropping to levels of emissions last seen in the 50s and 60s while third world countries come up to modern standards of living) is one which should be done in just a couple of years.
Also I agree that it is not the ultimate solution. Consider it an intermediate way point to be hit by 2020. Yes, emissions will need to go lower thereafter. But putting out 40% less CO2 per year immediately buys us an extra decade or two mitigation time to get near to zero emissions before we crash through 3 deg C.
IMO having NZers reduce their emissions by 2/3 and Americans by 4/5 in the next couple of years – as an intermediate goal – puts us on track for what you want to see.
Last point – NZ reducing emissions by itself does nothing. We need to be part of a scheme which forces every country to agree to this massive change to be accomplished right now, not in 30 years’ time.
Not the ultimate solution? You seem to give yourself more leeway than the Gens. Which is all I’ve said since my first comment on this.
70%in the next decade from wealthy (OECD….i.e NZ) in the next decade….AND the third world will not be able to catch up with western standard AND in NZ we already have approx 90% fossil free electricity generation so can’t greatly reduce there…which leaves transport and ag …and ag tech doesn’t exist yet , and may never …so that leaves us transport (and construction) and downsizing ag.
We are daily announcing increased tourism infrastructure enhancement, roading upgrades and construction projects…..all of which INCREASE CC outputs…..think about it.
The chances ANY of this will occur in NZ over the next decade are about nil
You do know this proposal would require each NZer to cut their CO2 emissions by 2/3 within the next couple of years, right? That means leaving cars in the garage, decreasing herd head count by millions, and immediate shrinkage of the economy.
This is NOT leaving it up to our kids and grandkids in 2050.
Therefore I reject the idea that this proposal gives NZ more leeway on CO2 emissions than the Generation Zero proposal, theirs pushes radical action out for decades. This one requires radical action immediately.
“You do know this proposal would require each NZer to cut their CO2 emissions by 2/3 within the next couple of years, right? That means leaving cars in the garage, decreasing herd head count by millions, and immediate shrinkage of the economy.
thats what it means…….we can do it now by choice or stop pretending we care whether our children and grandchildren live or die (not to mention the millions/billions already buggered)
Leaving the hard work for future generations decades from now is not only lazy, it won’t work. Cumulative CO2 emissions is what counts, and drastically cutting emissions now is what will make the difference.
Christ on a bike CV. Reducing every person’s emissions in NZ by 2/3rds (or whatever it was, the threads too long to navigate easily now) won’t really reduce NZs over-all emissions by 2/3rds and will crucify the poorest while leaving high emitters on the relative clear..
Parrot time’s here again. In a broad brush stroke sort of a way – Pareto’s rule, that has been found to hold for carbon emissions within and between countries in separate, independent studies by both Oxfam and Piketty/Chacer suggests that….
10% of people (roughly, the wealthiest) produce ~ 50% of emissions.
50% of people (roughly the poorest) produce ~ 10% of emissions.
Go work through the consequences of reducing all people’s emissions by 2/3rds given that reality.
“The answer, whatever it is, needs to bring down OECD emissions drastically while allowing poor regions a bit more carbon headroom.
Everyone needs to converge on about 3 tonnes of CO2 emissions per year. Poor people need to come up to meet that. Rich people need to come down to meet that.
The righties are correct, essentially. NZ bringing down its emissions alone will do nothing. What we do has to help pave the way for the rest of the world to follow or it will be for nothing.”
“Leaving the hard work for future generations decades from now is not only lazy, it won’t work. Cumulative CO2 emissions is what counts, and drastically cutting emissions now is what will make the difference.”
you see the dichotomy?
The plan is that everyone converges on to 3 tonnes CO2 equivalent in emissions by 2020 or before. Users of big cars, big houses, big air travel and foreign food products will be affected the most from today’s baseline living.
Poorer people who already emit sweet F.A. CO2 will hardly be affected at all.
Yes. In essence, unless a NZ scheme to converge on 3 tonnes CO2 per capita is part of a wider plan to push the entire world to do the same, then its not going to do a thing to limit catastrophic climate change.
If emissions from energy in the west are at zero by about 2030, the idea isn’t that it will allow developing nations to replicate our lifestyle. In energy terms, life improvements plateau at about he level of energy consumption existent in (I think) the likes of Sri Lanka. I could have the country wrong, but the point is that after a certain point, energy consumption does nothing in terms of improving quality of life.
By 2050, the countries that have used the leeway afforded by the west killing it’s energy emissions to give citizens a reasonable quality of life, will have to have transitioned off of the fossil base they will have used to achieve that goal.
When or if the entire globe has zero emission energy supply built in, the world can go back to the stupid resource guzzling nonsense of today if it chooses. (And hit all the walls of resource depletion that will result)
And as I keep repeating, land use emission have to be clattered. They can never be zero, but a net zero may be achievable through planting or other capture ploys.
“If emissions from energy in the west are at zero by about 2030, the idea isn’t that it will allow developing nations to replicate our lifestyle. In energy terms, life improvements plateau at about he level of energy consumption existent in (I think) the likes of Sri Lanka. I could have the country wrong, but the point is that after a certain point, energy consumption does nothing in terms of improving quality of life.’
two points….first, I never suggested developing nations replicate our energy use, indeed i stated they would not be able to. Secondly the reduction calculated by K.Anderson was 70% by OECD countries “in the next 10 to 15 years” (2030) not 100%.
“By 2050, the countries that have used the leeway afforded by the west killing it’s energy emissions to give citizens a reasonable quality of life, will have to have transitioned off of the fossil base they will have used to achieve that goal.”
All of the world will have to continue to net zero carbon post 2030, and yes the earlier reduction by OECD countries allows the developing world some scope to improve energy infrastructure.
“And as I keep repeating, land use emission have to be clattered. They can never be zero, but a net zero may be achievable through planting or other capture ploys.”
That is self evident and was never in dispute in so far as Im aware
“When or if the entire globe has zero emission energy supply built in, the world can go back to the stupid resource guzzling nonsense of today if it chooses. (And hit all the walls of resource depletion that will result)’
That would be a possibility……for those that remain, remembering Anderson qualified all this by stating it is a given many of the worlds poorer are condemned already regardless.
Sorry. I took your “will not be able to catch up” as indicating that the idea was for developing nations to attempt to emulate us.
On our need to only reduce emissions by 70% by around 2030, I can only assume you mis-heard or some such. Kevin Anderson repeatedly states the necessity of ‘the west’ being zero by around 2030.
This from a piece he wrote back in 2012. Since then (post-Paris) he’s of the opinion that the numbers indicate a 50/50 chance of avoiding +2 is now gone (due to government undertakings given at Paris that will result in over ~+3 degrees not being reviewed until 2020) and he reckons we are down, at best, to a 1 in 3 chance. (The link at the bottom of this comment is to a talk he gave at the London School of Economics where he runs through that and other implications of Paris. Unfortunately, whoever filmed it didn’t film the slides, but the talk is still well worth the listen for more recent analysis)
Anyway. From Anderson in 2012
And the LSE lecture…
“On our need to only reduce emissions by 70% by around 2030, I can only assume you mis-heard or some such. Kevin Anderson repeatedly states the necessity of ‘the west’ being zero by around 2030.”
view from minute 49 on your own posted link…
So I did. And he presents a slide outlining a need for a 70% reduction (there or thereabouts as he says) over the next decade (ten years) or so.
That’s not a departure from (effectively) 100% reduction by 2030.
If you read the ‘decade or so’ as meaning one or two decades, then sure, you can get to your conclusion. But that flies in the face of the consistent message he’s been giving in a number of presentations, lectures and articles over a fair period of time.
So either (just on the basis of that one slide) he’s had a complete change of mind because he got some simple arithmetic wrong all these years, or to be reading the slide as meaning ‘one or two decades’ is an incorrect interpretation of that slide… ie, an accurate interpretation is “ten years or so”, not “a decade or two”.
“so I did. And he presents a slide outlining a need for a 70% reduction (there or thereabouts as he says) over the next decade (ten years) or so.
That’s not a departure from (effectively) 100% reduction by 2030.”
its a fundamental difference between something and nothing….and he was reasonably specific…..10-15 years….2030 is 14 years away.
In any case it is likely semantics given the near zero chance of either occurring…70 or 100% reduction by 2030.
Bollocks to this Pat.
The text on the slide is – OECD countries need ~70% decarbonisation over the next decade or so.
His words that accompanied that part of the slide presentation are –
“We need a 70% reduction in our emissions over the next decade, or there or there-abouts. This is just guides for the policy makers”
An approximate 70% reduction (the little ~ symbol) ten years from now is between 2/3rds and 3/4ers of the way to zero on a 15 year trajectory.
Semantics is semantics and interpretations are interpretations, but making up words that you know aren’t true and ascribing them to someone has got nothing to do with either.
and bollocks to that…and I quote (at 51 min)….”2040, we need to make sure everything is at a very low carbon on the energy level, and that means virtually zero….”
Semantics is semantics and interpretations are interpretations, but making up words that you know aren’t true and ascribing them to someone has got nothing to do with either.
last time I checked 2040 was some 24 years away, not ” ten years from now is between 2/3rds and 3/4ers of the way to zero on a 15 year trajectory.”
2025 – 2040, not 2040.
Y’know Pat, none of the figures, neither carbon budgets or dates are absolutes that are set in stone…they have a certain amount of elasticity – not much. The rough guidelines are about 10 – 15% reductions in energy emissions for ‘the west’, (the longer we delay, the larger those per annum reductions need to be) aiming for zero around 2030, while China, India etc attempt to peak at or around 2025 and reduce emission by about 10% thereafter to get to zero by 2050.
That framework of action, according to IPCC carbon budgets, affords an outside chance on the 2 degree front – about a 1 in 3 or a 33% chance of not going over 2 degrees.
Ah Bill, go and listen to the man again…..he clearly says at min 51 2040, the 2015 to 2040 is corrected and the quote I posted follows…..and would note that he states there is virtually NO chance of 2degC even if all the COP targets met, not a 1 in 3 chance.
I am well aware these are broad figures, but they are broad figures erring on the side of optimism, by his own admission.
As stated previously it is all likely moot as neither target has a chance of being met when you consider the infrastructure programs all countries are implementing g (including our own) which are contrary to low/no carbon as Anderson covers in his lecture.
All he says is that the low or zero energy supply will take longer to lay in than 10 years. Coming on stream in significant volume around 2025 and in place by about 2040…
The COP ‘undertakings’ from Paris deliver about 3.5 degrees of warming. No-one, not me and certainly not Anderson, said those government commitments were going to give us a snow ball hell in chance of achieving anything like 2 degrees.
Have you missed the central premise of Anderson’s presentations? He doesn’t advocate that we cleave to government undertakings. He unequivocally states again and again that they are woefully inadequate, that government policy is often heading in the wrong direction (eg that there is no room left (time and carbon budget wise) to use gas as some kind of transition fuel, but the UK government is going ahead and building gas fired power stations regardless ) and that a radical change is needed in terms of how we view our situation and in terms of the necessary framework for actions we propose taking if we are to have any hope of success. (eg – chrematistic notions of economy that would use taxes or other financial mechanisms to bring about change need to be supplanted)
And he deliberately moves to the positive side of the science in terms of climate sensitivity because, as he says, it’s the only place that potentially positive outcomes can be discerned.
By the way, over 2 deg C of warming, the likelihood that the Earth takes the steering wheel out of our hands increases very quickly.
Our cleverly calculated plans and carefully crafted spreadsheets will be meaningless at that stage.
“Have you missed the central premise of Anderson’s presentations? He doesn’t advocate that we cleave to government undertakings. He unequivocally states again and again that they are woefully inadequate, that government policy is often heading in the wrong direction (eg that there is no room left (time and carbon budget wise) to use gas as some kind of transition fuel, but the UK government is going ahead and building gas fired power stations regardless ) and that a radical change is needed in terms of how we view our situation and in terms of the necessary framework for actions we propose taking if we are to have any hope of success. (eg – chrematistic notions of economy that would use taxes or other financial mechanisms to bring about change need to be supplanted)”
Have I missed the central premise?…..lmao…Bill Im not the one misinterpreting Anderson, yes he says the “wealthy” must start reducing consumption NOW….however he also is very clear about the role of governments….those who approve the infrastructure spend that is vital in any livable future.He is equally clear about the timeframe for carbon reduction by both the OECD andd the developing nations…..and to top it all off he is just as clear IF we do all the things he says, when he says we MIGHT IF WE ARE LUCKY avoid complete catastrophe, but that anything less assures it.
So I say again, it is moot….we will not reduce carbon emissions in the OECD (or NZ) by 70% (or 100% if it makes you happy) by 2030 (or 2025 or 2040) for the simple reason no one is planning to, not governments nor the vast majority of individuals, and certainly not the wealthy
Reduction of emissions from the demand side have to be on a ‘roughly’ 15 year trajectory to zero – ie – about 2030
Zero energy supply can’t be a part of that, because it can’t be built fast enough and, optimistically, might be fully in place in the west around 2040.
Seems you got two different sides of the same coin confuddled in the date/time line claims of your above comments.
have confuddled nothing…….his is a two pronged approach…..the reducing demand provides time for the low/zero carbon energy infrastructure……one without the other is of no use….if we reduce the demand now without changing the infrastructure we will not stay within the carbon budget and if we don’t reduce demand now there will be no time to change the infrastructure….
He covers this at around the 13 min mark, the low/zero carbon technologies are a requirement of staying inside the carbon budget for 4 degC…..and yes the the build times cannot be achieved prior to 2030 (in total) BUT they need to be started asap and not undermined by building carbon emitting long life infrastructure.
Yes, there are two sides to the coin (demand and supply) and the action surrounding them are, of necessity, set within two different time frames. And you didn’t confuse them.
Rosie,, at 3.2: the remit accepted was that all political parties plus co-opted specialists work together on Climate Change …..much like a war cabinet…..manifesto not out yet.
What Generation Zero are doing is a call to action. We need this urgently.
What Gen Zero are doing is offering up a feel good story that absolutely will not achieve the desired result even if the misguided and limited goal they call for is reached. In other words, it’s only offering false hope. And that’s not what we need.
Let me put this by way of analogy.
A snake-oil doctor says to take his ‘cure all’ potion. Do you support imbibing the potion even though you know it will do absolutely nothing by way of curing the ailment complained of? Worse, what if taking his potion involves delaying or foregoing the action that would have resulted in a cure being administered?
Y’know, it’s simply not the case that something is always better than nothing.
+ 1 Weka
I am reminded of this John Oliver clip regarding cc deniers….. applicable now to the knee jerk reaction that any action is not enough, or the immediate dissing of any positive action toward addressing emissions. It’s becoming boring, and should be ignored!
I don’t know for sure if that’s aimed at me or not. But since I’ve been pouring cold water on the Gen Zero proposal, I guess it might be.
So, to be crystal clear.
My reaction isn’t knee-jerk, but based on a fair understanding of the level of action required. What Gen Zero are proposing isn’t positive action. Given the basis for their proposal is dangerously deluded, anything working to that basis will be woefully inadequate. And that could be worse than nothing (as explained above). Meanwhile, I’ve laid out the basis for my thoughts and provided quality link after quality link.
That you don’t like ‘the take home message’ doesn’t make it wrong.
I am quite certain that Gen Zero will find plenty of traction with the status quo establishment and MSM for their ‘courageous climate change stance.’
Agree. The Generation Zero message seems to be crafted to read well and appeal to people without spooking the horses.
They have put forward some good campaigns, but all of them run on the premise that there is a wealth of time and going through the current systems will yield a result. I have supported some of their submissions for the Unitary Plan and transports – not because I felt that they achieve a lot in terms of CC, but they are reasonable in terms of community planning.
Transitional changes needs to move beyond that – and I don’t know whether the team at Gen Zero understand how to rock the boat, but look forward to be proven wrong.
the team at Gen Zero want their future and deserved lives of professional and educated privilege guaranteed. The steps they take are totally predictable, based on that.
Unfortunately, I have the same suspicion, and my children joined up when they were first starting a few years ago – but nothing inspiring regarding CC.
They seem to be very good marketers, social media users and online campaigners with an understandable concern – but run by a committee of conservatives.
Given the impact the TPPA would have on any government’s moves to address climate change, their presence at any of the protests should have been a given. But they were noticeable by their absence.
I don’t see any mention in this plan of international emissions trading. Making extensive use of such trading will be the most efficient way (i.e cheaper) for New Zealand to meet its targets.
Related to that, I don’t see any mention of the fact that unlike Denmark, New Zealand already has a high use of renewables. The potential gains on the electricity front are minimal.
Also, unlike Denmark we have 50% of emissions coming from agriculture. So what is the plan there?
That leaves transport. We are a technology taker. Vehicles are becoming more efficient so transport emissions should decline over time.
So that brings us back to international emissions trading.
Finally on the idea of gaining political support for a Bill to mandate emissions reductions…. If such a Bill looked like passing, and it would materially and negatively affect the Crown’s finances, then the Minister of Finance could use the Financial veto to block its passage. For example any Bill that would significantly reduce petrol excise, or through subsidising renewbales, or increasing energy costs to government agencies – all of those impacts could provide a trigger for the Financial Veto.
Indeed. To get any measure of carbon reduction from NZ, we need to change the government first.
Thanks for your contribution. I mean, emissions trading can be gamed, but even for that fairly mediocre suggestion we’d need to change the government because they might use the financial veto.
This is about no emissions.
Not about emissions trading.
Or mechanisms for every industry and every country to keep blowing out CO2.
Well, the rational thing to do there would be to drop agriculture down to being only enough to feed ourselves. Fairly obvious really.
Of course, the capitalists are looking to keep doing the same things that they always have that have put us in this position. In other words, the completely irrational thing to do.
Or we could phase fossil fuelled cars and trucks out of the picture over a reasonable time period of about 5 years while putting in place the necessary electric buses and trains and cycle ways to cover transport. All of which we can, and do, produce here from our own resources.
Great, another reason to get rid of the financial veto altogether (sign).
Fuck me dead! So I clicked over to their site. And their top Q&A claims the following
Can I impress on anyone here just how fucking bullshit that claim is? It’s fucking fantasy land that absolutely entails negative emission scenarios. And negative emission scenarios are predicated on technologies and infrastructures that do not exist and that cannot be rolled out (even assuming they are found to work) before we’ve shot right on through +2 degrees.
Support them? Like fuck.
Supporting false hope, and allowing our actions to be determined off the back of false hope, is worse in my book than denial. Denial can be ignored. Pessimists can be proved wrong by results from effective action. But peddlers of hokum block meaningful action by occupying the policy space that really needs to be filled with effective actions stemming from a clear appreciation of the situation we’re in.
I got emailed the link earlier in the day, and was more that a bit put off by what they had said. I thought it was a good base idea from generation zero – but reading the fine print as they say.
Sad really, but I wonder again if this is another case of radical centrism controlling the debate?
do not exist
To date, the Carbfix (what a shite name) project is underway in two locations. These are described in Nature as “pilot” projects.
I agree with the rest of your remarks.
Perhaps I should have been more precise and said “do not exist at scale”.
Storing carbon in basalt is one tiny part of the problem. Let’s say it works away from an Icelandic setting (ie – in places where heat can’t act as a catalyst) and let’s say there are ample deposits of accessible basalt in the world – enough to accommodate the 36 billion tonnes per annum that would need to be sequestered.
Where is the carbon that is being put into the basalt coming from in the first place?
Then, apart from carbon produced in power stations, how can it be any use in (say) the transport sector that typically in the west accounts for ~ 40% of energy related emissions?
If the CO2 that’s being captured in the power stations is to come from bio-fuels, then where is the land to grow the required crops? (Estimates are for a land area of anywhere between one and three times the size of India to satisfy current energy needs from bio-fuel)
So maybe I should have said “do not exist at scale or are only partially applicable and generally ignore associated logistical problems that would accompany development at scale”.
As far as tech goes, the Carbfix project is kind of cool. But y’know….
People don’t seem to understand that the CO2 we put out this year, next year and the year after that is what counts for avoiding 3 deg C climate change.
The amount of CO2 we put out in 2050 falls into the category of – who gives a fuck, coz we will have more than guaranteed >3 deg C warming by that stage, 480ppm CO2 and an ice free world say 500 years down the track.
I’m trying to nail the exact nature of your bad faith and hypocrisy. Perhaps you can help.
Climatologists good, Geneticists bad? Have I got that wrong?
Hi OAB, just passing on the facts to you. But as I said below, protect your educated ignorance. It makes no difference to me.
I note that you invoked Science while telling me something I already knew.
I don’t know the answers to your questions.
I expect that my deeply held existing beliefs will prove true: the weather will soon (within a decade or two) render our efforts useless and moot.
Then again, I’m an idiot, and useless at Chemistry, and still I understand that Carbfix is pretty simple tech. Hope springs like a zombie.
Having a hard time envisaging these ‘springing’ zombies…they look anything like zebedee? Or are they more like that fella Jack, in the box over there?
I guess springs can ooze….
In the same sense as a zombie argument, zombie hope is hard to kill. Drowning men clutch at straws, do they not? At least this straw appears relatively buoyant.
You’ve already identified the need to get to zero emissions by 2030. Personally I’d say we need to be there well before then and since that’s…unlikely…the potential for large scale carbon sequestration is a straw worth clutching.
For a fix on the scaling up required, to capture 1% of our global GHG emissions the technology would have to convert 500 million tonnes of CO2 per annum.
What would you know about it?
Just telling you the basic facts; but protect your precious ignorance, it matters not one whit to me.
Gen Zero don’t understand on the least what they are advocating for.
I think they understand what they’re advocating for. But they don’t appreciate that what they’re advocating hasn’t been based on reality and so won’t deliver the results they might be hoping for.
I might be in the same position today if I hadn’t stumbled across a Kevin Anderson presentation a few years back. On the off-chance that anyone from Gen Zero is reading this thread, and for the benefit of others who might be getting upset over the cold water treatment being applied to Gen Zero, I’m submitting two of his presentations, that combined, just about cover the basics.
And this is my take on that presentation
I think we will hit 2 deg C by 2030 or soon thereafter.
(A delay of a few years if the predicted massive solar minimum occurs then).
I did read that post. By the way, there are two links in the above comment. The url above the vid links to a different presentation. I don’t know why the same format/display didn’t come up for both, but hey.
Quietly wondering if the apparent abandonment of this thread is due to people going away to have a wee think or whether there’s a lot of must shoot the messeger gun loading going on.
Reloading other vid here.
I’m for all these decarbonisation plans as long as you can guarantee that my standard of living isn’t going to be affected…
The amount of carbon already emitted guarantees over 2 degrees C before 2030.
The only hope now is we start to lower emissions in time before we totally fuck things.
Which mean taxing the total cost into fossil fuels and use the dividends for minimisation and adaptation. As so many people are unable to think unless it hits their back pocket immediately.
Tax how? At source? – The cost gets passed on to the consumer.
Settle for just hammering the poor with taxes? – Emissions won’t fall to anywhere near the required levels.
Recycle a carbon tax take back to the poor? – Still doesn’t affect the 10% of people that produce about 50% of all emissions.
Taxes (or levies or fees) haven’t worked where they’ve been tried, don’t work when followed through at the theoretical level in study/research, and basically won’t work.
A tax, levy or fee is a marginal cost and will only ever result in marginal change.
eg – Anderson and Larkin Bow applied a (approx) NZ$500 tax per tonne of aviation fuel. In 2012, that would have resulted in a 25% increase per ticket for air travelers. In other words, even that enormous tax (I think it’s either 6 or 10 times any current proposal) wouldn’t impact in any significant way on air travel.
Take the same level of tax and apply it at the petrol pump (50c per liter) and the poor walk while the higher earners, who tend to be the high emitters carry on as before.
Throw a $10 per liter tax at it and the poor, not only walk but can’t afford to buy food in the shops.
It is called tax and dividend, Bill.
The Green party policy.
The tax is on the emitters and the dividend is passed to consumers, and/or development of sustainable options.
And, it needs to be high enough to make a change in behaviour.
So by taxing the emitter, I guess you mean at an industry level. And the emitter will pass the cost on down through the consumer chain. So, I can’t see how any level of tax will change their behaviour – they just ‘pass it on’.
Meanwhile, rising prices (due to them passing the buck) and rising energy costs, hit poorest people hardest.
Even if the poorest get a dividend way in excess of what they spent on fossil, the fact remains that the richest (eg – the 10% responsible for about 50% of emissions) will just absorb the rising cost for their lifestyle that will result from their dividend not covering their costs – while the poor may well spend a portion of their dividend (extra cash) on fossil consumption! (The rebound effect)
At best, tax and dividend is a redistribution mechanism that plays out a bit like progressive taxation. It doesn’t affect emission levels very much.
If by emitter, you mean at an individual level, well the targeting becomes well nigh impossible and again, the high emitters absorb the extra costs while the poor get hammered.
Bill, James Hansen details here how a fee and citizen dividend scheme will encourage organisations to transition away from fossil fuels.
“Passing costs along” no longer works as a business strategy when those costs influence your customers to change to lower cost suppliers who are shifting off fossil fuels.
And does this scheme result in immediate reductions in the order of 10 – 15% per annum? Because if it doesn’t – and I’m picking that claim won’t even be being made – then it can’t be proposed as a central plank for any reduction strategy.
As I pointed out the other day, “smoke free 2025” used tax (a bloody high one at that) as a central plank, and “smoke free 2025” has come off the rails.
That attempt to alter things was to carbon reduction like draughts is to chess…a piece of pish.
Smoking levels were already dropping before 2010
There was a huge level of buy in.
There was no need for ‘dividend’ components to be built in.
There were huge public awareness programmes that most people were already on-side with.
There were law changes.
There were comprehensive ‘transition’ services up and running.
There were readily available and cheap alternatives (Gum, patches, grow your own, vapourisers etc)
Back to carbon.
Taxes, levies or fees as a central component to “reduction” strategies do not effect sufficient change. There are no examples of them having produced significant or deep change and studies that have been done bear out their ineffectiveness.
Australia got a 1% reduction in emissions with a carbon tax in operation during an economic slow down. Useless!
(As I said “way back when”, the government could have treated tobacco smoking like methadone, allowed smokers to register and pick up their tobacco for the cost of a script and NZ would have been smoke free in the life span of current smokers.)
From your link.
“The carbon price will need to start small, growing as the public gains confidence that they are receiving 100% of the proceeds. If the fee begins at US$15/tCO2 and rises $10 per year, the rate after 10 years would be equivalent to about US$1 per gallon of gasoline. Given today’s fossil fuel use in the United States, that tax rate would generate about US$600 billion per year, thus providing dividends of about US$2000 per legal adult resident or about US$6000 per year for a family with two or more children, with half a share for each child up to two children per family.”
Meanwhile (again) a NZ$500 per tonne levy on aviation fuel does nothing to cull air travel. But put that aside. What do you think a poor person will do with that (approx) NZ$3000 ‘dividend’? How much of it winds up being spent on consumer goods or holidays or travel? (ie – in ways that increase emissions)
I do not think that any of these plans, adopted as boiler plate, is going to be suitable for NZ. They need to be adapted.
As for your claim that the carbon fee and dividend has never been known to work to reduce GHG emissions I provide this to you: British Columbia’s revenue neutral carbon tax
Steps like a living wage and reducing income inequality are all about helping poorer people consume more in order to improve their standard of living.
Can the Left provide the bottom 50% of society with ways to improve their standard of living without going on holiday or consuming more (carbon emitting) goods and services?
I’m aware of the BC scheme. And I’m also aware that the results are deeply contested. There are arguments that apparent sales dropped because people were buying un-taxed fossil from over the state line. I can see how that would be tempting for diesel heating systems and such like where one off and substantial purchases are being made, but less attractive in terms of filling the car.
And here’s the thing, both the advocates and the detractors of the BC scheme agree that fuel use in transport only dropped by about a percentage point.
Basically, given that there was the potential to buy from across state lines, I’d say the results of the BC scheme have to be viewed with caution. The place that ran a tax in a ‘captured market’ scenario was Australia. And like I said above, there was a 1 percent reduction in fossil use or emissions…which is woeful in terms of what has to be achieved from the perspective of 2 degrees.
On your last point – within NZ, poor people can have a good standard of living that doesn’t involve an increase in their overall consumption of fossil beyond, for some, in the very short term, at the same time as middle and upper income people’s consumption levels decrease rapidly from their present profligate levels.
That’s the post I want to write, but first I’m going to have to write one on tax that shoves all the ideas about various pricing mechanisms and financial levers and what not into the rubbish bin where they belong. They’re a hindrance to achieving the necessary reductions, not a help.
Now we’re thinking.
And there are lots more.
All that is missing is the political will to implement them.
The battle against climate change will be humanity’s greatest battle
“We’re not going to wait around for our politicians to do the right thing any longer; we’re going to draft a bill ourselves with help from experts and collaborators, and work to get all political parties to support it and pass it through Parliament.”
Go for it Carbon Zero.
Begin by Moving our freight pendulum back to rail as much as possible again.
Take it to a fairer even split from the ghastly unequal levels of 90% by road & 7% by rail to at least a 50/50 equal share seems fair just try getting the truck lobbyists and their deep pockets out of the parliamentary pork barrel trough firstly please!
If you make bill that will be effective, Bill will veto it. Because stupid. Need a carbon neutral way of disposing of corrupt governments.
Unfortunately they rot and emit methane.
Death by Climate Change
I wonder if I could get the Climate Party to run a parody “Swimmable Streets Centrepiece Campaign”
And in the same period.
Warm air holds more moisture.
That Auckland’s gutters and drains are not designed to cope with these increasing record breaking heavy rain events.
And that we are likely to suffer more of these events until ultimately our urban infrastructure is unable to cope.
But will you get the Green Party to comment on this?
I have run several google searches for one comment, using different phrases and wording to try and find even just one comment by the Green Party on this.
With Zero results.
I call the ‘new kids’ generation omega, as in the last one )
‘Death of winter’: Jet streams cross equator, ‘chaos’ predicted
Scientists have observed an “unprecedented” event that could lead to an end of seasons as we know them, after Northern Hemisphere jet streams crossed the equator and linked with others in the south.
Usually separated entirely from each other by the equator where warm air acts as a barrier, both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere consist of jet streams made up of either warm moist air or cold dry air.
A couple of details Robert.
One phd student and one blogger – not ‘scientists’.
They were looking at the wrong altitude (apparently)
Here’s a link with scientific opinion and further links.
Dr Jennifer Francis is a pretty good ‘go to’ person for jet stream study btw. Yes, it’s changing (slowing) due to arctic warming and one result of a consequence of that are ‘eddies’ that produce ‘stuck’ weather patterns (ie, longer than normal periods of unchanging weather – which isn’t good)
Late edit – and robertscribbler has amended his post in light of the above linked article.
and on Paul Beckwith (the phd student)
Nice counter and research, Bill. Let’s not over-stimulate each other. It’s exciting enough as it is.
Good on young people for getting on with securing feasible political change while our traditional structures waste the goodwill of activists or we talk ourselves into paralysis seeking the perfect.
Finding a solution which will salvage our climate situation is not seeking “perfection” FFS.
There won’t be any point to zero emissions by 2050 because global civilisation will be falling apart by then if we do not take radical steps in the next couple of years.
It is the GHG emissions this year, next year and the year after which count if we want to stay below 3 deg C climate change.
The emissions we make in 2050, 2051, 2052, don’t count for shit, except for staying below 5-6 deg C climate change.
Do you not understand that what we call “feasible political change” today will be swept away in the next ten or so years when the climate crisis tightens its grip around our throat and we begin to choke.
Good luck getting political support for the scale of change that’s needed. At least these guys are proposing a structure that can survive our short political terms and be ramped up over time. Beats whinging.
+ this many times.
FFS, I can promise anything and date it 2050 as well.
These guys have proposed a structure that isn’t connected to reality and that would, from the perspective of 2 degrees, lock us into ineffective action. You can’t ‘ramp up’ a proposal that is predicated on something like a 60 year time span when we only have about 15 years to get things done and dusted.
But you’d take that route on the basis that getting political support for the necessary level of change might be an exercise in futility?
Bill if the powers that be don’t accept the figures and numbers as you state them and nothing happens. Isn’t gens idea better than that nothing.
No. From the perspective of 2 degrees, it’s just the same as nothing. There comes a point, I don’t know what that point is, where the level of temperature rise becomes irrelevant in terms of human prospects and/or in terms of inducing runaway non-anthropological warming.
Alternatively, if people buy into Gen Zero type frameworks, it potentially weakens or kills the prospects for putting forward a case based on reality, in which case it’s worse than nothing.
The same as nothing. Except the human will and energy to do it. Plus the practice at doing it so more of it can be done. The ability to show others it and inspire and give them hope to make the changes necessary. The belief it will give some youth that they can make a difference hopefully leading to more involvement and bigger numbers. In the battles ahead all of that is something not nothing.
In almost all other instances i can think of, I’d agree with you marty. But we only have 15 years – 5 500 days. There are no “battles ahead”. This is it. It’s today.
Now, we either choose to do or demand something effective that might give us an outside chance to not go over 2 degrees; to not kill millions upon millions of people in tropical and equatorial regions, or we choose to go down some other path.
Marty, we have 10-15 years to avoid crashing through 3 deg C global warming.
I don’t particularly care about what carbon emissions are in 2050 or 2051. Stopping the water dripping through your roof in 2050 is not going to save your joists; it is stopping the water dripping through your roof tonight, and tomorrow night and the night after that which is going to save your house.
And this Earth is our only one. We don’t have another ‘house’ to move to after we fuck the maintenance of this one.
BTW if we don’t get serious action much sooner, then within our life time (presuming you are under 50 years old) things are going to get so bad that we are going to have idiots seriously considering detonating nuclear warheads in the desert to cause a nuclear winter.
Gen Zero are proposing a solid cross-government mechanism for change, not a ‘plan’ for what that change will look like. Yet all the armchair generals can muster is moaning that the group’s plan is wrong.
You try gathering the necessary political support. At least Generation Zero can point to past results in that area, not just hot air and warm urine.
Why did they set a date of 2050 for zero carbon then, not 2030?
2050 guarantees that we will sail straight through 3 degrees C global warming and guaranteed climate disaster.
So give them points for their winning political plays if you wish, but not for their knowledge of climate change or their plan to deal with it.
They are just going to keep pushing the date back every single year.
Everything is a rich man’s trick!!
There is no real credible plan to deal with global warming, every piece of rhetoric or soundbite is merely a stop gap between delays to solution.
It’s infuriating at times!!!