Government still doesn’t care about climate change

Written By: - Date published: 3:23 pm, July 8th, 2013 - 146 comments
Categories: climate change, same old national - Tags:

We have very good climate scientists in New Zealand, but the government isn’t exactly promoting them.

Wanting us to be followers rather than leaders, taking us out of Kyoto 2, diluting our ETS into a polluter-subsidy scheme, getting us fossil awards, even only having an economic plan of mining and more dirty dairy (along with asset sales and gambling)… National are consistently on the wrong side of the argument.

So I guess it shouldn’t be a surprise that they’re planning on more than halving the climate research budget from $10 million/year to $4.5 million.

Instead of looking at and planning for humanity’s greatest current challenge, Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy has recommended scaling back funding for Climate Change Research Grants – and then promptly ran off overseas.

So it’s been left to Jo Goodhew, his associate, to defend his actions (fresh from justifying why targets which have got National to a 25% female caucus are good, but any actions to try and achieve targets are bad).

She said Government would continue to invest in climate change research but this research would be more closely aligned with current Government policy – in particular the Business Growth Agenda.  That’d be the Business Growth Agenda that is largely about research into mineral exploitation.

So we won’t be looking at business opportunities from climate change, but business opportunities to cause climate change.

Nice one National.

146 comments on “Government still doesn’t care about climate change ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. infused 1
    8 July 2013 at 3:32 pm

    Indeed, good one National.

  2. Anne 2
    8 July 2013 at 3:47 pm

    She said Government would continue to invest in climate change research but this research would be more closely aligned with current Government policy – in particular the Business Growth Agenda. That’d be the Business Growth Agenda that is largely about research into mineral exploitation.

    I look forward to Labour’s Climate Change spokesperson (David Cunliffe isn’t it?) pulverising Jo Goodhue into a little ball of trembling fluff. I doubt she even realises the irony of her statement.

    • Benghazi 2.1
      8 July 2013 at 6:49 pm

      Climate Change Spokesperson is Moana Mackey

      • Jenny 2.1.1
        8 July 2013 at 9:25 pm

        I look forward to Labour’s Climate Change spokesperson (David Cunliffe isn’t it?) pulverising Jo Goodhue into a little ball of trembling fluff.

        Anne

        An easy mistake to make Anne. In all fairness David Cunliffe should be Labour’s spokesperson on climate change.

        David Cunliffe is the only member of the Labour Party caucus to have ever spoken out strongly, and authoritatively on the issue.

        And Cunliffe would certainly pulverise National on climate change, and probably every other major issue as well. Something Labour is currently failing to do.

        However as Benghazi has rightly pointed out. The current Labour Party spokesperson for climate change is list MP Mona Mackey.
        And she is is not even in the Labour Party Shadow cabinet.

        (Whereas National’s Simon Bridges the National Party’s spokesperson for Climate Change Issues is a Cabinet Minister).

        This indicates what value the Shearer led Labour Party puts on climate change. (Less than National).

        At the Green Party called, Cross Party Conference on Climate Change. (Which David Shearer, though invited, refused to even be seen at). Mona Mackay officially fronted for the Labour Party. Mackay prefaced her contribution to the conference, by saying that the views she was expressing were not necessarily the Labour Party’s. And then never made clear which were her personal views, or was Labour Party policy. But it didn’t really matter, as what Mackey said, was so bland she might as well not have spoken at all.

        As well as MacKey’s low ranking, her qualified and guarded comments on climate change reveal exactly what we can expect from Labour in government in respect to climate change. Pedal to the mettle, flat out coal mining, fracking, deep sea oil drilling. Exactly like National.

        • Jenny 2.1.1.1
          8 July 2013 at 9:39 pm

          David Cunliffe speaks on climate change.

          • Anne 2.1.1.1.1
            9 July 2013 at 11:18 am

            Ahhh yes thanks Jenny. Moana Mackey is a good MP and comes across as a nice person but she is a lightweight compared to Cunliffe. I think he does play a formal role when it comes to climate change so lets hope it continues. Of course the more he impresses, the greater the chance his caucus adversaries might try the old “he’s planning a coup” trick again and demote him even further down the caucus ladder.

  3. Rich the other 3
    8 July 2013 at 3:48 pm

    Sounds like a waste of $4.5 million .

    FACT , NO WARMING FOR 17 YEARS,
    were being conned by a few self serving scientists , no warming = no job, it’s that simple.

    • Zorr 3.1
      8 July 2013 at 3:56 pm

      FACT: Trolls will be trolling

      http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/01/14/no_global_warming_for_16_years_debunking_climate_change_denial.html

      Now go away and let us grown ups try to deal with our mess.

      • Rich the other 3.1.1
        8 July 2013 at 4:21 pm

        More fairytales from fanatics ,
        I prefer to listen to the British environment minister who is beginning to ask questions from the well paid scientific community.

        A big PLEASE EXPLAIN, 17 years ?? , no doubt they have gone into panic mode and are currently doing a salinger.
        I’m sure the half truths are on the way.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 3.1.1.1
          8 July 2013 at 5:28 pm

          Don’t be silly: there’s no point in pretending to be interested in the answers to these questions, Rich, you’re just demonstrating your bad faith.

          Meanwhile, in the real world, the climate changed.

          In 2011, the current record year, severe thunderstorms caused US$ 47bn in economic losses in the USA, i.e. about as much as a medium hurricane. From the long-term perspective also, on average severe US thunderstorm losses increased significantly from the end of the 1980s in particular, and the fluctuations between the years were more extreme.

          Munich Re.

          • Rich the other 3.1.1.1.1
            8 July 2013 at 5:43 pm

            Seasons have always changed and will continue to change, media hype is behind a greater awareness of what are regular events.
            $47 billion ,so what, meaningless.

            Doesn’t explain the 17 YEARS of no increase in global temperatures.

            • RedLogix 3.1.1.1.1.1
              8 July 2013 at 5:57 pm

              You’re not really worth the spit you cowardly fuck. If for one minute you had to try and justify the corporatist lies and crap that you’re spewing here … face to face with a real climate scientist …. you’d fold into a snivelling heap.

              • Rich the other …
                8 July 2013 at 6:13 pm

                Lies , what Lies ???
                Fact , No global warming in the last 17 YEARS , explain that.
                It’s not me telling lies.

                • RedLogix …
                  8 July 2013 at 6:41 pm

                  Some easy references were given to you above. Either you did not, could not, or would not read them.

                  There is any amount of science available on the web for you to read. You’ve had a decade or more to get informed. I am assuming you don’t want to be and treating you accordingly.

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    8 July 2013 at 9:04 pm

                    A decade?

                    Reality check: Margaret Thatcher (academic discipline: Chemistry) insisted that the world address the Greenhouse Effect in 1988.

                • farmboy …
                  8 July 2013 at 6:58 pm

                  yea na they cant explain it, simple as that rich,there just a pack of moaning little limp wristed pricks that think they are better than everyone else because they think they know the future.Of course they dont and its all starting to fall apart.Your the cowardly fuck redlogix go hug a fuckn tree and shut the fuck up ya fuckn pantie wearing, candy assed, latte drinking, steaming pile of motherfucker

                  • Macro …
                    8 July 2013 at 7:11 pm

                    Your a coarse little fucker aren’t you fuckerboi! Thick as shit as well! Gotta repeat well debunked crap to convince yourself – of what? That your an ignoramus! A no nothing and full of piss and wind! And a proper little bully to boot. Is that it? Did you get a proper booting where the sun don’t shine when you were a kid – and still haven’t grown up? Gotta come here and try to throw your weight around because there is no way you have the intelligence to carry on anything that resembles logical discussion?

                    • farmboy …
                      8 July 2013 at 7:24 pm

                      Planet hasnt warmed no amount of your bullshit can convince the common man anymore ,nobody will care this has happened they could give them no money and no1 would give a shit, in one ear out the other for the majority chappie do you disagree.

                    • Macro …
                      8 July 2013 at 7:38 pm

                      Wait until the next El Nino smart arse.
                      If you really are a farmer – be prepared!
                      ps The pacific has been La Nina dominant since 1998 (ie the Oceans are soaking up heat at the rate of 4 Hiroshima Bombs per second). When they come to release that energy – your farm will be toast.
                      Remember this when you go crying to the Government for a handout.

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      8 July 2013 at 9:28 pm

                      Farmboy, “there has been no significant warming” is not the same as “there has been no warming”. But let’s just assume that’s moot.

                      The information the claim you are making relies on is the global surface temperature record. Check for yourself if you don’t believe me.

                      What does the surface temperature record say about the deep oceans? Or the troposphere?

                      “We need better wingnuts” isn’t just my way of insulting you: I’m quite serious: many on the Right have simply given up trying to provide cogent policy responses in favour of cretinous denial, and that’s not only very very stupid, it gives the left a monopoly on policy, because dude, I hate to break this to you but those geeks in lab coats, they don’t give a toss about money, or politics, and they aren’t telling lies.

                    • tricledrown …
                      8 July 2013 at 10:44 pm

                      Bill English has signaled their may be no more hand outs farmers will have to vote left to get help as usual labour is better for farmers

                  • RedLogix …
                    8 July 2013 at 7:22 pm

                    There are any number of places on the web were you can get a thorough and complete explanation. Here is one of the best:

                    http://tamino.wordpress.com/

                    I usually turn to Tamino for the most accurate and technical explanations. He even published his own statistics textbook … which I purchased and been studying on and off the last few months.

                    There are many years worth of excellent material on his site, covering not just climate change from many, many different angles … but he’s also a genius at teaching the many interesting, challenging and powerful ideas and techniques that underpin statistical analysis.

                    Specifically I can point to:

                    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/global-temperature-change-the-big-picture/

                    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/10/21/temperature-analysis-by-david-rose-doesnt-smell-so-sweet/

                    If you started now and read non-stop it would take many months to get your head around all the teaching material on his site.

                    But of course you won’t even look will you.

                    • muzza …
                      8 July 2013 at 7:37 pm

                      Red, appreciate the links, and will check them out..

                      Does the site address geo-engineering?, if not I would suggest that its incomplete, because like those on this site (except with some expertise to back it up, I expect), you can’t explain the movements on a chess board, while choosing to ignore some of the pieces, as if they don’t exist, much as they try to ignore it, that’s just too juvenile a response mechanism!

                      Geo-engineering IS happening, has been going on for a considerable period of time, most probably as a response to the damage the scientific industry has created! Shock horror, the climate conditions have become *changeable*, and people only want to talk about carbon, because their ego get’s in the way, and damn it, they know science, and their science, is righteous!

                      Science is the problem, it got us in this mess, and it won’t be getting us out, not in any way we would like to see!

                  • dumrse …
                    8 July 2013 at 7:41 pm

                    What a real grown up contribution that was. No wonder you are just a farm boy.

                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                    8 July 2013 at 8:36 pm

                    Farmboy I’m with RedLogix and Macro: if you believe the drivel you’ve posted you have shit for brains to go with the shit you use to pollute the rivers.

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  8 July 2013 at 6:58 pm

                  It’s been explained that it’s a load of bollocks, other wise known as outright lies. You just prefer to accept the lies even when they’ve been proven to be lies than accept the truth.

              • BM …
                8 July 2013 at 6:15 pm

                Lol, don’t fuck with a climate scientist, they’ll kick your arse.

                Haha, funny stuff.

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  8 July 2013 at 9:09 pm

                  Metaphorically speaking, no doubt whatsoever. Literally speaking? Depends on the Climatologist. That Pachuri looks like a pretty rangy sorta fella.

                  …and then there’s Dr. Karl Braganza.

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                8 July 2013 at 8:34 pm

                The warming of the deep ocean demonstrates your ignorance of this topic, Rich.

            • tricledrown 3.1.1.1.1.2
              8 July 2013 at 10:46 pm

              worthless the idiot how come we have had the hottest 10 years on record since 1998

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 3.1.1.1.1.3
              8 July 2013 at 10:58 pm

              Rich the Other, I note your assertion that “seasons always change”.

              How do you know? The science you rely on for the data is a hoaxy fraudy thing, remember? Oops.

              Consistency, the reality test that liars always fail.

          • muzza 3.1.1.1.2
            8 July 2013 at 7:07 pm

            Bloke, why are you still citing insurance companies…

            You know they’re, the banks, right?

            Little more complex than that, but your continued references to the insurance industry, as if its not part of the problems we all face, indicates, you have no idea where they fit in!

            • Naturesong 3.1.1.1.2.1
              8 July 2013 at 8:20 pm

              Insurance companies are really good for this kind of information actually.
              The weather effects that result from climate change need to be priced in so they, and their shareholders don’t lose their shirts.
              But you’re better following the actuaries as they get access to seriously good quality raw.
              http://www.casact.org/press/index.cfm?fa=viewArticle&articleID=2261

              http://ourfiniteworld.com/2013/05/23/oil-limits-and-climate-change/

              • muzza …
                8 July 2013 at 8:42 pm

                I would go take a look at who the *investors*, are, if I were you. Hint, its not the mathematicians, hint 2, *losing shirts*, not relevant!

                Once you have taken a good look, post your findings, and Ill validate them for you!

                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                  8 July 2013 at 8:47 pm

                  So the insurance companies are falsifying their claims data, are they? The ratio between weather- and geology-related claims hasn’t changed at all, and Muzza knows this because he’s got a crystal ball and access to the real data, which no doubt he can link to.

                  Otherwise, you’d have to conclude he’s either full of shit or doesn’t understand the significance of the information being presented.

                  • muzza …
                    8 July 2013 at 8:50 pm

                    Try addressing the questions, instead of deflecting, and talking about what you do not understand/can’t comprehend!

                    Get some *investor* details for the some well known insurers, and while you’re there, don’t forget to lis who the underwriters are!

                    Go on, get into it!

                    Then perhaps you can tell me all about the banking industry again, eh ;), let’s see how you get along!

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      8 July 2013 at 8:54 pm

                      The question is irrelevant, since it has absolutely nothing, zip, nada, zero, to do with the ratio between weather related claims and geology related claims. That’s the only significant data point.

                      Your answer is “they’re all corrupt and telling lies for money”, is it? Pfft.

                    • Macro …
                      8 July 2013 at 9:03 pm

                      What a load of bullshit you write muzza! Not a farmer as well are you?
                      Re Munich one of the largest re-insurers in the business actively researches and promotes climate protection and adaptation to global warming and its all about keeping their business viable. Because they realise that with increasing frequency of extreme weather events, insurance will become a thing of the past for most people (it will become far too expensive) – and that means they are out of business too.
                      http://www.munichre.com/en/group/focus/climate_change/default.aspx

                    • muzza …
                      8 July 2013 at 9:05 pm

                      The ratios are all that matter – You bro, have to get out more, you have NFI, what you’re talking about!

                      Your answer is “they’re all corrupt and telling lies for money”, is it? Pfft.

                      No, my answer again is, you have NFI what you’re talking about! Worse than that, like to pretend that you do, and worse again, refuse to go and find out who owns the insurance companies, you have been spouting off about!

                      I’ll remind you, yet again, of the time you spent trying to tell me, about an industry, I have worked in for years, when you have not spent a single minute of your working life, anywhere near it!

                      Edit – Macro, don’t fall into the same traps as others on here, by pretending you know what the insurance industry is, for crying out loud, go away, and look at who controls the industry, and you will find its the same entities that sponsor environmental terrorism, globally!

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      8 July 2013 at 9:14 pm

                      Got something substantive to say Muzza? So far you’ve said precisely zero. It isn’t that your assertions are un-sourced, it’s that you haven’t asserted anything at all. Empty. Void.

                      PS: you work in insurance? Then you will have little trouble showing how flawed the data is. Has the ratio changed or not? Put up or shut up. The investors don’t handle claims, do they?

                    • Macro …
                      8 July 2013 at 9:17 pm

                      So you have worked in insurance for a while muzza – that makes you an expert in Global Warming how??
                      And the money behind insurance is the money behind environmental terrorism (whatever THAT is)!! lol You have to be joking!

                    • muzza …
                      8 July 2013 at 9:25 pm

                      You seem to have missed it, so I’ll say it again!

                      Bloke, you have NFI , what you are talking about, and try to cover the chasm, using techniques a young child could crawl through!

                      You have not worked in the financial industry, and seemingly know nothing of the fundamental relationship between banks, and their insurance industry retailers, so you don’t know where to look for investor information, which is why you flap about with simple projections/deflections.

                      Keep to the subjects you can fudge your way through, son, and stay out of those you can’t!

                      That’s anything/everything , financial, in case you missed it!

                      Edit – Macro, no. I’m not an expert in GW, any more than 99.9% of those who post on this site, understand even simple concepts about the symbiotic relationships inside the financial industries!
                      What I do know, is large tracts of the financial industry, how it works, and its reach. The financial industry sponsors wars, sponsors oil, mining and any other environmental terrorizing business, you can name….sheesh mate, surely people get can their heads around it!

                      Edit 2 – Bloke, you can’t even remember what industry I said I spent most my work life in, give it up, pal!

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      8 July 2013 at 9:34 pm

                      Then, you witless, tiresome, empty, trivial, patronising shithead, what the arse has that to do with the change in the ratio between weather and geology related insurance claims, you stupid twat?

                      According to you, fuckwit, weather manipulation is responsible for the change in climate, or HAARP, or perhaps Buzz Aldrin (who can tell) but as soon as I mention it I’m out of my depth? Fuck you’re a moron.

                    • muzza …
                      8 July 2013 at 9:51 pm

                      Then, you witless, tiresome, empty, trivial, patronising shithead, what the arse has that to do with the change in the ratio between weather and geology related insurance claims. you stupid twat?

                      Patronizing, yes I would agree with that, and as long as you continue to seek any small island that resonates with your *intellect*, such that your world will hold together, by talking angles which are irrelevant, then, I will remain so!

                      According to you, fuckwit, weather manipulation is responsible for the change in climate, or HAARP, or perhaps Buzz Aldrin (who can tell) but as soon as I mention it I’m out of my depth? Fuck you’re a moron.

                      No, thats being disingenuous on your part, but consistently abusive!

                      What I actually say, is that there is much more to CC, than people want to discuss, and I’ve linked to numerous articles all discussing geo-engineering, and still you want to throw insults, like a petulant child who can’t have his way, because it scares him, and so the toys go on the floor!

                      Discussions require openness, they require all possible angles to be combed through, not just what suits any given agenda, or props up rapidly degrading world views.

                      So, yes, when it comes to understanding simple concepts which govern the financial industries, you seemingly can’t, as such you are out of your depth!

                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                      8 July 2013 at 9:56 pm

                      There’s been a change in the ratio between weather and geology-related insurance claims then? That’s what I thought, you tiresome cretin.

        • Martin 3.1.1.2
          9 July 2013 at 9:10 pm

          You might want to pay a bit of attention to the Arctic.
          There has been no 17 year hiatus up there.
          http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.nz/2013/07/wildfires-in-canada-affect-the-arctic.html

          We are toast

    • Anne 3.2
      8 July 2013 at 3:58 pm

      Why is it dumb bunnies like Rto don’t understand how dumb they are? I guess it’s because they’re too dumb. 🙄

    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 3.3
      8 July 2013 at 4:01 pm

      Do you believe that? It always surprises me, the bullshit that rightwingers are prepared to swallow.

      If you’d been keeping up with the facts you’d know that the deep oceans have warmed considerably during that seventeen year period (Balmaseda et al 2012)

      What’s the matter, didn’t the “information” you read mention that? I wonder why.

      Perhaps you think ocean temperatures don’t count.

      As for surface temperatures, 2010, a La Nina year, was the hottest on record. Why do you suppose the fact that it was a La Nina year is significant? Or didn’t your ventriloquist mention that either?

  4. Winston Smith 4
    8 July 2013 at 3:54 pm

    Yes I agree, this is another election winner so Labour should campaign on this and the man ban. National won’t be able to withstand the onslaught of inspired voters. 🙂

  5. infused 5
    8 July 2013 at 4:34 pm

    I support reducing New Zealands 0.02% carbon output and the destruction of our economy.

    Makes sense.

    • Bill 5.1
      8 July 2013 at 4:58 pm

      Sitting at no. 50 in a list comprising some 200+ countries on per capita emissions probably and fairly suggests that a fair number of people in New Zealand are among the 20% of the worlds population that is responsible for about 80% of the world’s carbon emissions.

      But sure infused, fuck it all and finger point.

      • infused 5.1.1
        8 July 2013 at 8:29 pm

        per capita means jack shit.

        • Macro 5.1.1.1
          8 July 2013 at 8:37 pm

          Well no – we wouldn’t expect you to understand that sort of language now would we!
          bill don’t use big words (and especially not two Latin words together!) infused doesn’t understand!

        • RedLogix 5.1.1.2
          8 July 2013 at 9:11 pm

          OK so we’ll go with your idea that “per capita means jack shit”. So what measure makes sense then? Total emissions?

          Clearly the policy settings of the very large nations or groups like the USA, China, India the EU and the like will have a very disproportionate impact. Certainly there will be no change unless these large nations make the necessary changes. That’s logical enough.

          But the position of a nation like the USA is not the same as say India or China. One has very high emissions for it’s population, while the other has very low emissions for a much larger population. Clearly the USA has a much bigger opportunity to reduce it’s overall emissions because each American is already using far more than say the average Indian peasant.

          Imagine two lifeboats, each with the same total supply of water to be rationed out. One boat has three people in it, the other has thirty. Suddenly “per capita” has a very real and vital meaning.

    • Galeandra 5.2
      8 July 2013 at 5:21 pm

      Responding to WS, RTO and I is wasteful of time and emotion. Anonymity allows them the opportunity for sabotage of the kind which appeals to truculent teenagers, especially males who don’t like the touchie-feelie stuff that goes with considering others before self and not trashing the place. Boys like them frequently had low literacy skills and a penchant for drunken hooning when I had the misfortune to try to teach them and are diabolical at derailing any attempts at intelligent conversation from any quarter. Don’t feed them and they may happily go back to tearing out letter boxes or pissing competitions.
      Posts like this don’t help, either. The case is worth discussing on its own merits, and the government’s failure is already evident without sarcasm or writing in capitals. There is nothing to be gained through jeering and sneering. And people like Rich don’t like things to be complicated- ‘ it’s that simple.’

      • UglyTruth 5.2.1
        8 July 2013 at 7:22 pm

        Rejecting the propaganda about catastrophic AGW is not the same thing as trashing the environment.

        The scientific method involves making testable hypotheses. The climate models that the IPCC tested all failed, and the reason they failed is beacause the IPCC is diven by politics, not by objective science.

        • One Anonymous Knucklehead 5.2.1.1
          8 July 2013 at 8:31 pm

          All failed? More drivel from the king of drivel.

          Reality check: the first “modern” climate model was published by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. It correctly predicted, that the Earth would warm, that nights would warm more than days, Winter more than Summer, the Northern Hemisphere more than the Southern, the Arctic more than the Antarctic. Climate models have increased in accuracy and resolution since then, but Climatology rests on observations, not predictions, despite your woeful ignorance.

          As George Box once famously said: “All models are wrong – some are useful”. It’s not a hard concept to understand – but my prediction is that you will fail.

          The IPCC doesn’t do any “science” – it collates information. You didn’t know that either.

      • infused 5.2.2
        8 July 2013 at 8:32 pm

        lol – pull your head out of your ass, please.

    • Draco T Bastard 5.3
      8 July 2013 at 7:00 pm

      National’s plan to dig up all our resources and sell them over seas is what will destroy our economy. No resources, no economy.

  6. Bill 6
    8 July 2013 at 4:48 pm

    From the linked article –

    The contestable grants were used to finance research by tertiary institutions and government agencies on adapting to climate change, reducing emissions and creating carbon sinks, and tapping into business opportunities which arise from climate change.

    If I take that as accurate, then there are a coule of things needing to be mentioned.

    Point 1. “Adapting to climate change” has involved adapting to a 2 degrees C increase and not the far more likely 4 degrees C increase. So, arguably, that money/research was a waste of bloody time.

    Point 2. “Reducing emissions and creating carbon sinks” What? Where? When?

    Point 3. “Tapping into business opportunities which arise from climate change” is expressing deep set fucking denial. Business operating in a market locks in the conditions that cause the fucking warming… and will continue to do that no matter the level of wishful thinking thrown in that direction.

    The full $10 million should have been utilised for realistic mitigation measures based on the science (4 degrees C) and taking equity into account (ie, not chained to market b/s). But it wasn’t. And now that it’s being quietly ‘disappeared’, it won’t.

    So a focus on unrealistic expectations has been abandoned. And so I don’t know that anything connected to our future prospects has changed. I suspect not though. Government and government agancies were never going to be able to deliver anything useful on the climate change front. That’s down to you and me not relying on a ‘fix from above’ and simply not doing a whole pile of habitual shit that we presently do every day.

  7. Colonial Viper 7
    8 July 2013 at 6:54 pm

    Research into climate change? You have to be lol’ing me. The chance for that was 10 years ago. Now its time to get our civilisation off fossil fuels, and our economy off growth.

    That’s a $5B/pa investment for the next 20 years. Who is going to stump up?

    • Draco T Bastard 7.1
      8 July 2013 at 7:17 pm

      Not this government nor a Labour led one. Both main parties are in denial of the damage that capitalism causes which make it unsustainable.

      • muzza 7.1.1
        8 July 2013 at 7:22 pm

        No, all parties are owned by interests, whose only concern is control, control of resources, all of them!

        Not a single party, or respresentative, will be taking those interests on, they share the same vision!

    • weka 7.2
      8 July 2013 at 7:18 pm

      The regenerative agriculture people are making some bold claims about carbon sequestration that could do with some heavy duty research from within the mainstream. Which conveniently would also allow us to grow our own food, restore marginal land, and relocalise our farming.

      (But I agree about getting of FF and economic growth).

  8. Jenny 8
    8 July 2013 at 7:04 pm

    “Government still doesn’t care about climate change”

    BEN CLARK

    Ben, not only does our government not care about climate change.

    With their program of increased oil drilling, fracking, coal mining, they have actually declared open war against the climate.

    Unfortunately, at this point in time, it is a one sided war. Those of us who care for more than money, have not yet begun to fight back.

    Starting with the New Zealand elections of 2014, our job will be to challenge every single political party, or politician, that refuses to discuss climate change openly with out fear or favour. Either because they feel it is not a vote winner. Or because they think making money is more important.

    • muzza 8.1
      8 July 2013 at 7:10 pm

      Jenny, its not the governments programme…

      Sooner people identify the government for what it is, the better!

      Article should read – Government only cares about, its sponsors agenda!

    • jaymam 8.2
      8 July 2013 at 7:11 pm

      The science is settled, so my LEC secretary told me. So no need to waste taxpayer money on more research.

      P.S. should we invite Kim Dotcom to stand in Epsom? I’m almost serious about that.

      • Macro 8.2.1
        8 July 2013 at 7:31 pm

        Actually jayman there you would be very wrong! While the knowledge that we are responsible for the earth heating at more than 4 Hiroshimo bombs per second is well understood – the areas that we are still uncertain about are just how severe will be the resulting changes in climate – vis how will the changes in jet streams affect the weather patterns. eg Britain has just experienced unprecedented winters and summers in the past decade. The Met Office in Britain has just had a conference on this very issue http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-22937375

        NZ has much to loose if we are unable to forecast accurately, and farmers – even the idiot farmerboy here – stand to loose their business if they fail to realise the impending consequences of climate change.

        The Waikato for instance has had 4 dramatic droughts in the last 10 years the last one last summer is calculated to have cost $2Billion in lost production. Ten years in which the farmerboy will tell you it hasn’t warmed (except he conveniently overlooks the rapidly warming oceans which surround NZ and which have a direct effect on our weather).

        • farmboy 8.2.1.1
          8 July 2013 at 7:47 pm

          I happen to live in the north king country which is basically waikato, only 2 droughts chap no different to any other 10 year period, this is why nobody believes it any more we farmers just caught on earlier, you just tell so many lies and half truths its bloody funny, are you really al gore

          • Macro 8.2.1.1.1
            8 July 2013 at 8:06 pm

            http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/06/newzealand-drought-idUSL4N0BX7U920130306

            and from the NZ Farmer obviously you can’t read your own rag

            “The history of drought – and the future

            ■ 2007 – Record low rainfall in many northern and eastern areas leads to a shortage of feed and lower than normal spring lambing and beef numbers.

            ■ 2008 – Waikato experiences driest January in a century. Severe moisture deficits continue in North Island until April/May, with the estimated cost to agriculture exceeding $1b, and an 11 per cent fall in sheep numbers.

            ■ 2010 – 253mm of rain falls in Northland between November 2009 and April 2010, leading to its worst drought in 60 years. In the previous year 748mm of rain fell.

            ■ 2050 – Niwa models suggest that by mid-century, farmers in most North Island regions, as well as those in eastern regions of the South Island will be spending 5 to 10 per cent more of the year in drought.”

            http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/8405004/North-Island-drought-worst-in-history

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 8.2.1.1.1.1
              8 July 2013 at 8:40 pm

              😆 Macro nice one.

              • Macro …
                8 July 2013 at 8:46 pm

                It’s just that you and I know what we are talking about – farmboy and his ilk just fart out of their arse – and that takes no effort on their part.

            • farmboy 8.2.1.1.1.2
              8 July 2013 at 10:21 pm

              haha 2007 2008 it was the same season numb nuts that is the second drought i was talking about 2010 waikato had no drought it got dry as always in most summers but no drought you said 4 droughts in waikato in 10 years and your full of shit

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                8 July 2013 at 11:20 pm

                *you’re

                Illiterate, semi-coherent, bereft of syntax or punctuation, what Farmboy is trying to say here is that Macro is wrong, but Macro’s source is Farmboy’s mouthpiece.

                Heads are gonna roll!

                • farmboy …
                  9 July 2013 at 7:56 am

                  he is wrong his 4 years of drought he put up 2 are from the same season 2007 2008 and 2010 there was know drought in waikato, this is why the tide has turned too many lies

          • Jenny 8.2.1.1.2
            8 July 2013 at 8:32 pm

            A serious question for you farmboy.

            As a farmer. If, (God help us all), there is another drought this coming summer. Will you be revisiting your current position on climate change?

            (a) Yes

            (b) No

            (c) Maybe

            (d) Never

            Pick one.

            • Jenny 8.2.1.1.2.1
              8 July 2013 at 10:05 pm

              Come on Yarpie, What could be easier? (a), (b), (c), or (d). What’s your choice?
              Pick one, or forever hold your peace.

              What’s wrong, lost your nerve?

              Hoender? Cluck, cluck, cluck.

            • farmboy 8.2.1.1.2.2
              8 July 2013 at 10:28 pm

              no two droughts in a row bad luck 3 droughts might get worried but we will see wont we shouldnt the climatetoligist people be able to tell me if there is going to be a drought next year seeing they can tell me about 2050 oh thats right they cant even get it right 7days ahead

              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …
                8 July 2013 at 11:10 pm

                Of course they can’t predict what will happen in seven days. Weather is chaotic, but Climatology deals with the fact that winter is colder than summer, days are warmer than nights, and so on. Please stop exposing your poor grasp of the subject.

              • Jenny …
                9 July 2013 at 7:07 am

                So the answer is (b) No.
                Yarpie you cannot be much of a farmer. The (admittedly few) farmers I spoke to, up in North Waikato near me, had not seen a drought like the last one. Another one like it, would make believers of them. One farmer I spoke to has owned his farm for 33 years had never seen the creeks on his land so low. The ground had become so dry the posts of all his brand new fencing were loose and rattling in their holes slackening the wires. And you reckon it would take three such droughts in a row to convince you.
                Let us all pray that doesn’t happen.

                P.S. By the way, a climatologist is not a TV weather forecaster.

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 8.2.1.1.3
            8 July 2013 at 8:39 pm

            Farmboy’s ignorance on display for all to see. The moron thinks weather is climate.

      • weka 8.2.2
        8 July 2013 at 7:32 pm

        Depends on what he thinks of NZF and the GP. And a whole raft of issues to do with the governance of NZ.

  9. johnm 9
    8 July 2013 at 7:44 pm

    “Government still doesn’t care about climate change”

    The issue is Global and unstoppable, beyond any action by any NZ Government therefore no point in worrying about it! Cutting back our carbon emissions won’t make a blind bit of difference. Sorry Jenny idealism can’t save us now! 🙁 Too late.

    • weka 9.1
      8 July 2013 at 7:52 pm

      NZ could be a world leader in mitigation, adaptation and preparation. All that needs research.

      All the things that we should do to reduce emissions are the same things we should be doing anyway in terms of preparation, PO and the GFC. The only rationale for doing nothing is if you believe there is not such thing as AGW, or you think it’s real but we should party while the ship goes down.

      • Colonial Viper 9.1.1
        8 July 2013 at 8:40 pm

        NZ could be a world leader in mitigation, adaptation and preparation. All that needs research.

        Improve building standards. Improve public transport, coastal shipping and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Harden up the energy grid. Identify and fix weak points in food production, distribution and logistics.

        IMO more doing and less studying.

        • Bill 9.1.1.1
          8 July 2013 at 8:55 pm

          IMO more doing and less studying.

          The ‘professional’ coordinating class ain’t too good at doing beyond ‘doing’ meetings. But we know that…

          Which does kind of beg the question as to why most people are content to await directions from them?

          • Draco T Bastard 9.1.1.1.1
            8 July 2013 at 9:06 pm

            The ‘professional’ coordinating class ain’t too good at doing beyond ‘doing’ meetings. But we know that…

            And the only “doing” that they’re interested in is lining their own pockets.

            • Colonial Viper 9.1.1.1.1.1
              8 July 2013 at 9:13 pm

              perhaps they could organise a scholarship? A research fellowship? A chair at a university? A white/blue/green paper? A conference or seminar series? A think tank? A strategic planning session? A stakeholder consultation programme?

              You see, this is why we’re fucked. We’ve lost the ability to do anything meaningful at the national level.

              When one of your largest cities can no longer issue building consents, you know that large chunks of the capability of your country has gone down the toilet and there is no faking it any more.

    • Macro 9.2
      8 July 2013 at 7:53 pm

      While I would concur with much of your sentiment – Humans still have a small budget of Fossil fuels left – we have “spent” roughly 2000 Gigatonnes of fossil fuels and still have about 500 Gigatonnes left to burn if we are to stay within the 450 ppm CO2 equivalents considered “safe”.
      Every moment humanity delays is a moment that draws us closer to catastrophic Global Warming. Yet don’t we as a species have some responsibility to those follow after us?
      If we choose to do nothing – no matter how desperate the situation – how can we honestly look our children and grandchildren in the eye?

    • infused 9.3
      8 July 2013 at 8:36 pm

      Pretty much my point. Hold on tight!

    • Draco T Bastard 9.4
      8 July 2013 at 9:00 pm

      The issue is Global and unstoppable, beyond any action by any NZ Government therefore no point in worrying about it!

      That would be wrong. We may not be able to stop what’s coming, I agree with that, but we can the necessary plans to be able to survive through what’s coming. If we keep doing what farmboy and the other idiots want then we probably won’t be able to.

  10. Viv K 10
    8 July 2013 at 8:44 pm

    Jenny is not being idealistic, she is being real. This government is openly trying to increase fossil fuel exploitation and doesn’t give a damn about the consequences. They should be stopped. Macro and Weka, well said. JohnM – give up now you say. NO!

    • Colonial Viper 10.1
      8 July 2013 at 9:16 pm

      Nah, unless there is a plan to substantially cut fossil fuel energy use and economic consumption of goods and services, this is simply wasting time and energy for zero impact.

      • Colonial Viper 10.1.1
        8 July 2013 at 9:19 pm

        Well, not zero impact, your conscience may be helped and a few more people may think about the issue. But basically, in the scheme of things especially with regards to the time we have left, its like asking passengers on the Titanic to sign a sternly worded petition as she starts slipping under the sea.

        • Macro 10.1.1.1
          8 July 2013 at 9:27 pm

          Actually the sea will rise and cover us CV – slowly but surely.

          Going cold turkey on FF is simply not possible, but we have a chance if we can leave the coal in the ground.

          http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2011/05/13/hansen-lectures-heat-up-coal-mining-issue/

          Of course with the idiots in charge we would rather spend $100M of what we haven’t got on digging it out

          So I guess your right…… 🙁

          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 10.1.1.1.1
            8 July 2013 at 10:09 pm

            Nothing will be done, therefore the weather will degrade our ability to emit more carbon to the extent that the problem becomes moot.

          • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.1.2
            8 July 2013 at 10:23 pm

            Going cold turkey on FF is simply not possible, but we have a chance if we can leave the coal in the ground.

            IMO there is only one moral use of FF at this point: to get the nation off FF and to us for massive environmental and economic (and hence social) changes.

            • One Anonymous Knucklehead 10.1.1.1.2.1
              8 July 2013 at 11:06 pm

              Agreed, but I’m pretty much convinced that the moral of the story is that we’re going to have to adapt to BAU.

    • jaymam 10.2
      8 July 2013 at 10:58 pm

      I think Jenny is just another of those hirsute greenies who wants to take over the Labour party. Or maybe not 🙂
      P.S. I’m enjoying this fine climate we’ve been having lately – I just painted my roof. Green, but the paint was cheap!

      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 10.2.1
        8 July 2013 at 11:03 pm

        It’s the fixings that should probably concern you, and the integrity of the structural members the fixings attach to.

  11. Martin 11
    9 July 2013 at 9:29 pm

    Congratulations everyone. we have succeeded in kicking the can down the road so far and for so long that it no longer matters.

    No doubt you have heard of tipping points, methane clathrates and hydrates, Boreal Peat, Oceanic acidification and species die offs are a few. Judging by the information coming off the satellites we have crossed the tipping points. Methane levels in the upper atmosphere are escalating. These are being fed not only from Siberia but other places also. Peat bog fires are adding their own cargoes of soot and carbon.
    The temperature differential between polar and mid latitude regions is being reduced causing the jet stream to slow and meander. This is not theory, this is actually happening NOW! This is why western USA is broiling while the east is getting floods. Same over Europe. but it will be the methane that will get us. Just like the Permian extinction 30,000 odd years ago.

    Even if we shut down all fossil fuel consumption or set a 100 Kyotos it will make no difference.
    The impact is cumulative, that is inertia is built into the climate machine. That means we are already set for 6 degrees warming. At 4 all you can plan for is extinction as no agriculture is possible. Nothing, including denial and delusion, can change this. Not Greens, National or Labour.

    In short we are toast.

    http://arctic-news.blogspot.co.nz/2013/07/wildfires-in-canada-affect-the-arctic.html

    http://www.robinwestenra.blogspot.co.nz/

    http://www.robinwestenra.blogspot.co.nz/2013/07/global-warming_8.html

    http://www.robinwestenra.blogspot.co.nz/2013/07/unstoppable-warming.html

    http://guymcpherson.com/2012/12/the-twin-sides-of-the-fossil-fuel-coin-presenting-in-massachusetts/

    • Colonial Viper 11.1
      9 July 2013 at 9:35 pm

      Yep.

    • weka 11.2
      9 July 2013 at 10:49 pm

      “At 4 all you can plan for is extinction as no agriculture is possible”

      [Citation needed]

      • Martin 11.2.1
        10 July 2013 at 8:06 pm

        Hi Weka,

        Last Summer [northern hemisphere] the larger part of the USA was hit by sustained and harsh drought. Corn and and wheat crops sustained much damage. Corn growth was retarded and only produced half sized cobs. A similar situation is developing in the western USA already this Summer. Over all we have seen only 1 maybe 1.5 average warming so far. If this is how agriculture is affected by 1 deg how do you think it will respond to 4?

        For the last 10,000 years we have been blessed with a relatively stable climate that has allowed us to develop our agriculture. Now that seems to be changing.

        • weka 11.2.1.1
          11 July 2013 at 12:05 am

          “Corn and and wheat crops sustained much damage.”

          You are talking about a kind of agriculture that has only been practiced for a handful of decades. It is inherently unstable and unsustainable. Even without AGW, it would have to change. But humans have been growing food in extreme climates for millennia, usually as various forms of polycultures (which are much more stable than wheat or corn monocrops).

          The other thing to bear in mind is that the cropping you are talking about is not about growing food for local people. It’s about producing profit via industrial extraction of fertility. You can’t really compare the two things.

          “For the last 10,000 years we have been blessed with a relatively stable climate that has allowed us to develop our agriculture.”

          You speak about agriculture as if it is one thing and hasn’t changed in 10,000 years. In reality agriculture is very geographical (different people practice it differently depending on their climate, geography etc), and is often mixed with other forms of growing food.

          For a look at growing food in very dry climates see

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hftgWcD-1Nw (4 mins. That’s in a place in Morocco, and while not a comparable climate, it has similarish temperatures and annual rainfall as Alexandra, one of the hottest driest places in NZ).

          The watch this (around 5 mins I think. The project in Jordan, that Lawton refers to in the first vid. The Jordan project is in one of the driest places on earth. Jordan has the lowest rainfall per head of population on the planet).

          This is pretty cool too – how adaption to climate extremes on degraded land can happen across communities and countries (in Africa in this instance)

          The thing that pisses me off is that McPherson is well aware of what I’ve just said. I’m not saying AGW isn’t serious (I think even the best sustainability practices are going to be severely tested, and I think alot of people will die), and for sure places like Texas in the US are going to struggle far worse than other places (largely due to modern farming practices esp around water/aquifers), but I’m yet to see evidence that humans will go extinct.

          What exactly is the strategy in telling people we’re doomed and it’s too late to do anything?

          • Draco T Bastard 11.2.1.1.1
            11 July 2013 at 12:41 am

            Texas will be part of the large desert stretching up the middle of the North American continent.

            • weka 11.2.1.1.1.1
              11 July 2013 at 12:49 am

              So? People live in deserts.

              • Draco T Bastard …
                11 July 2013 at 12:53 am

                Not by the millions they don’t.

                • weka …
                  11 July 2013 at 12:55 am

                  Still not sure what your point is.

                  • Draco T Bastard …
                    11 July 2013 at 1:17 am

                    I wasn’t really making a point but part of it is that Texas and parts north of there are presently part of the massive industrial food system of the US and it’s all going to turn into desert.

                    • McFlock …
                      11 July 2013 at 1:25 am

                      I’d kind’ve thought of texas as a desert anyway.

                      Too much “Walker: Texas Ranger” when growing up, I guess.

                      Unless Chuck Norris is so strong that he punches clouds to make it rain over Texas. 🙂

                    • weka …
                      11 July 2013 at 11:01 am

                      “I wasn’t really making a point but part of it is that Texas and parts north of there are presently part of the massive industrial food system of the US and it’s all going to turn into desert.”

                      Before the effects of AGW, Texas etc was already being turned into a desert by the farming practices being used, including water allocations. The Colorado River no longer runs to the sea.

                      NZ is following suit in places like Canterbury, the high country, Central and North Otago. My point here is that even if we (NZ) can’t do much about AGW globally (although we should be doing what we can), we can still stop making things exponentially worse on the ground. Drought isn’t just caused by weather or climate.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      11 July 2013 at 11:11 am

                      I’d kind’ve thought of texas as a desert anyway.

                      Being such a massive territory, Texas rates no 2 in the USA for agricultural output. With lots of beef ranchers too…

          • Seemorerocks 11.2.1.1.2
            12 July 2013 at 5:45 pm

            It seems to me that those of you that are trying to discredit Guy McPherson are ignoring the facts.

            Most of what we see about climate change is based on computer models done by climate scientists who tend to specialise and be conservative in what they say. In turn the IPCC reprots are an exercise in science by concensus.

            The projections of the IPCC have been well-and-truly overtaken by actual events on the ground.

            Most of the effects of warming are to be seen, not in places like NZ, but in Arctic – also the vast majority of energy is going into the oceans, into the Arctic (also BTW, the Antarctic), into the melting of polar ice. We may yet see an ice-free Arctic (at the minumum, which is Sept) this year, if not, by 2014-5.

            In addition to this a number of positive feedbacks have been observed (12 at last count), the most significant of which is the release of methane from the permafrost, and, more alarmingly, from the oceans. These phenomena are supposed to happen in the future, if nothing is done – but are happening now.

            These feedbacks have been observed, but, to date, only one has been studied in depth, by the Arctic Emergency Group.

            Basically what all this means is that “the hotter it gets the faster it gets hotter” – this is an exponential growth. So the projections of a 2C-4C become unrealistic and we can expect to see much higher increases that will make agriculture of ANY description, including permaculture, impossible.

            Guy McPherson, at least, in my books, is being intellectually honest in that he has actually modified his position (and continues to do so) based on the facts.

            I agree there is no certainty in this, but on the balance of probabilities, based on the info we have, I suspect he is right. If you spend enough time looking at what he is saying you you find his sources.

            In the mantime I have written a couple of essays

            http://robinwestenra.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/near-term-human-extinction.html

            In the second I have supplied some references – I suggest you look at them

            http://robinwestenra.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/near-term-human-extinction.html

        • weka 11.2.2.1
          11 July 2013 at 12:36 am

          How about some data on what will happen in NZ?

          • Draco T Bastard 11.2.2.1.1
            11 July 2013 at 12:52 am

            http://www.mfe.govt.nz/issues/climate/about/impacts.html

            NZ will probably do quite well compared to most of the world but not as well as we are now.

            I’ve said before that NZ will be one of the few places on Earth that will be able to maintain our present living standards even when AGW hits hard. This is because of the mitigating effect of being surrounded by ocean. Of course, Chch and Westport and other low lying cities probably won’t think so as they get drowned by the rising tides.

            • weka 11.2.2.1.1.1
              11 July 2013 at 1:00 am

              Thanks, that’s interesting. They’re not talking abotu 4C or 6C though are they?

              I’d like to see the end ranges (lowest and highest temp averages) and consider them in terms of 4C or 6C. Not least because I’m sick of the US drought being used as a sign of the end of all humans. A big part of why the US is having a hard time is because they’re fucking with the water tables and have been for a long time. We’re trying to do that too but haven’t had long enough to really make a mess of it (give us another decade of dairying and see how we go).

              • Draco T Bastard …
                11 July 2013 at 1:05 am

                They’re not talking abotu 4C or 6C though are they?

                No, the governments of the world are still claiming that they’re going to limit warming to 2 degrees which, IMO from reading numerous articles, is a load of bollocks. 4 degrees really is much more likely.

              • Colonial Viper …
                11 July 2013 at 11:12 am

                NIWA have prepared temp and rainfall predictions for the next few decades of climate change for every area in NZ.

                • weka …
                  11 July 2013 at 11:27 am

                  But presumably based on 2C?

                  It’s hard to see how most places in NZ couldn’t cope with a 4C rise, esp with the increased rainfall predicted. It will be the sea rises and extreme weather events coupled with the fact that much of our land and water is already badly degraded that will be more of a problem.

                  Although the 2C rise info I looked at on the MfE site suggested places like Southland would have up to 70 less days of frost per year. Good for growing food, maybe not so good for native ecosystems (which we will be dependent on).

    • weka 11.3
      9 July 2013 at 10:50 pm

      “In short we are toast.”

      So? Why bother posting then?

      • Colonial Viper 11.3.1
        9 July 2013 at 10:59 pm

        I read it as our current way of life is toast, a fair number of humans should survive. Maybe as many as 2B.

        • weka 11.3.1.1
          10 July 2013 at 11:04 am

          “At 4 all you can plan for is extinction as no agriculture is possible.”

          I’m just sick of this argument, which comes from Mcpherson without any kind of credible citations. It’s irrresponsible in the extreme.

          If we’re locked into above 4C, and above 4C means we all starve and go extinct, then what is the point in coming onto ts and talking about it?

          • Sable 11.3.1.1.1
            10 July 2013 at 11:19 am

            The reason for talking about climate change is so we can mitigate the worst outcomes for human beings as a species. Personally I think we are history as long as we continue as we are, its simply not sustainable. Yet no one in government gives two hoots but then looking at who we have elected should that come as a surprise?

            • weka 11.3.1.1.1.1
              10 July 2013 at 11:36 am

              Sure, but that’s not what Martin said. Martin said it’s too late, we’re fucked, we should be planning for extinction. How does one plan for extinction exactly?

              People who think it’s too late, we’re all fucked and nothing can be done (esp the ones who go on about how they knew all this 20 years ago when we still could have done something but no-one listened to them), they should just fuck off now. Those of us who believe that there are still important things to do, even if it doesn’t prevent human extinction, would like our efforts not to be undermined by people who should know better.

          • Martin 11.3.1.1.2
            10 July 2013 at 8:21 pm

            maybe you should watch his presentation and pay attention to his slides. He does cite sources.

            To answer your “why bother?” question. I have known about this a while and thought about posting. In the end I got sick of hearing about carbon credits bandied about like useless indulgences the popes used to sell. We should live with intention, Here and now . Buddhism could teach us something about this.

            Accept that nothing lasts forever. We all will die at some stage.
            A good life is possible but it won’t happen without effort.

            I don’t think having me fuck off will make your tasks easier. You have to know where you are going before you go there.
            I don’t think I should, any more than you should.

            • weka 11.3.1.1.2.1
              11 July 2013 at 12:45 am

              “maybe you should watch his presentation and pay attention to his slides. He does cite sources.”

              Last couple of times I followed McPherson’s sources they went nowhere useful (in terms of the extinction claims). And every time I ask someone who is quoting McPherson to back up what they are saying, they can’t.

              You made the claim that it is too late, we’re doomed to extinction now, so the onus is on you to back that up.

              I have a great deal of respect for Buddhism, but not when it is used in this intellectually dishonest way. We don’t know what is going to happen, and if there is a chance of making some changes for the better before civilisation goes down in a screaming mess, then we are honour bound to take that path. To make political moves along the lines of we are doomed and then cite Buddhism vaguely is worse than useless. Humans aren’t designed to deal with species extinction cognitively, emotionally or spiritually, and we’re having a hard enough time waking people up as it is. Telling them there is no point, just puts them back to sleep again, and lessens the chance for change.

              So again, I ask you what is the point of your strategy?

              btw, I’m not sure if this is what you are saying, so please clarify if I’ve got this wrong, but the idea that we can use Buddhism to accept our now predetermined fate is complete bullshit if you are making pseudo-scientific claims, or fortune telling about the future.

              “A good life is possible but it won’t happen without effort.”

              A good life at the expense of other life, let’s be honest about that. And I suppose that confirms what I suspected, that for some the extinction theory is a rationale to not do anything and to try and have fun while it lasts. I don’t have too much of a problem with that actually, I just wish you lot would stop monkey wrenching the work others are doing that might make a difference.

              • Macro …
                11 July 2013 at 1:31 pm

                Weka, can I suggest you read this:
                http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/earth-insight/2013/jul/10/james-hansen-fossil-fuels-runaway-global-warming
                We are, according to a 2010 paper by Otto et al
                http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n6/full/ngeo1836.html
                discussed here:
                http://theconversation.com/long-term-warming-short-term-variability-why-climate-change-is-still-an-issue-14476
                committed to around 1.3 Degrees warming if we were to stop burning all FF immediately. This was hailed by the “skeptics” as a powerful blow against warming. Of course, as always, they failed to understand the papers significance. (There is inertia in the system and the Earth won’t stop warming until the energy being radiated out equals the energy coming in) Obviously stopping burning all FF tomorrow is not about to happen. So we know that, from what has has been recently published, that in the paleo-climate, feedbacks started to kick in at around 1.5 Degrees of warming. This means we really are on the verge of runaway global warming. And as others have suggested here, 4 – 6 Degrees and more is certainly on the cards. Not tomorrow but certainly in the future.

                • weka …
                  11 July 2013 at 3:09 pm

                  “This means we really are on the verge of runaway global warming.”

                  Yes. You do realise that I’m in agreement with that. What I’m disputing is what that means in real terms. People keep soundbiting ‘oh the crops will fail’ and use that to justify their belief that it’s too late to do anything and humans will go extinct.

                  They state that as fact (it’s not), and when I ask them to back it up they can’t. It’s a belief, and an intellectually dishonest one at that.

                  What I am saying is that what those people, esp influential ones like McPherson, are doing is sowing fear and seeds of doom that will prevent humans from taking right action. If the message is “6C, we can’t do anything about it, it’s too late”, why on earth would anyone bother doing anything about AGW? To me it’s the most specious of arguments because these people are otherwise relatively aware and knowledgable. They’re not shouting FIRE in a crowded theatre, they standing in the aisle telling everyone that the fire exits are locked. They don’t know whether the fire exits are locked, they just believe they are. Think about that and what they are doing and the implications this has.

                  My own personal belief is that there are still many useful things that people can do, personally, politically irrespective of whether humans will go extinct or not. The idea that we should all hold hands and sing Kumbayah while the ship goes down makes the Extincters as bad as the CC deniers, because they’re undermining what little chances we have left.

                  • Macro …
                    11 July 2013 at 5:03 pm

                    I tend to agree with you there weka. I’m not sure what the outcome will be in real terms, We can get some idea from the paleo-climate record, and we can note what is happening with the warming we have already. There are studies that show that some areas of the Earth will become too hot for human existence. And we need to bear in mind that at present humans dominate 36% of the earth land. So with a burgeoning population and declining available land – inundation of alluvial plains is another factor to take into account. The pressure will be truly upon us.
                    Positive action now is the only action anyone can honestly make.
                    I’m currently reading “Enough is Enough” By R Dietz and D O’Neill. Recommended reading if you can lay your hands on it.

              • Martin …
                11 July 2013 at 10:41 pm

                you insult and misrepresent me.

                A good life does not automatically equate hedonism.

                A person who can keep their head will make better decisions than one who doesn’t.
                meditation and being mindful will in my view help us keep centered and therefore better able to think more clearly. I have seen Buddhism applied to a terminal situation [ my cousin chose this during her last year when she knew her time was limited.]

                I am not a scientist. I listen to and read those who are. Yes I might be wrong, I’d like to be wrong. I know enough earth science to know shit from shinola. Thus what is written on Arctic-News makes sense.

                No I am not saying we sit on our arses and do nothing. That’s stupid!
                Rather we triage and do the the things that matter. and before you ask me to spell it out that is something for people to decide for themselves.
                My nieces and nephews make me hope and dread at the same time and I’m sick of staying silent after so many did nothing when we had a better chance of changing things. We knew back in the late 1970’s and instead of continuing what pres. Carter started, pres. Reagan told us it was morning in America. It has been downhill from there.

                good night.

                • weka …
                  12 July 2013 at 12:39 pm

                  Martin, here is what you said:

                  The impact is cumulative, that is inertia is built into the climate machine. That means we are already set for 6 degrees warming. At 4 all you can plan for is extinction as no agriculture is possible. Nothing, including denial and delusion, can change this. Not Greens, National or Labour.

                  You are saying there that it is a fact that humans will go extinct, and there is nothing we can do to prevent it.

                  By your own admission you say you don’t know if that is true. All I am saying is stop fearmongering your beliefs by presenting them as facts.

                  And it’s not that YOU are saying do nothing, it’s that your message is. Look at what you wrote. If people believe you, many of them will do nothing, because they can’t see the point in making their lives more difficult for not reason.

                  I am not a scientist. I listen to and read those who are. Yes I might be wrong, I’d like to be wrong. I know enough earth science to know shit from shinola. Thus what is written on Arctic-News makes sense.

                  For every thing that makes sense to you in terms of the extinction hypothesis, I can produce something from intelligent, thoughtful, credible people who say otherwise. We don’t know what is going to happen.

                  “A good life does not automatically equate hedonism.”

                  True. Just as well I didn’t say that then.

                  A person who can keep their head will make better decisions than one who doesn’t.
                  meditation and being mindful will in my view help us keep centered and therefore better able to think more clearly. I have seen Buddhism applied to a terminal situation [ my cousin chose this during her last year when she knew her time was limited.]

                  Yes, I agree with all that. I’m not debating the merits of Buddhism. I’m saying that your basic premise of terminality is a belief not a fact, and it is intellectually dishonest to present it as a fact.

                  By all means, if you believe that we are terminal, use Buddhism to help relieve suffering. And offer your skills in that to the world as a possible. But please stop telling people we are doomed, when you don’t actually know.

                • lprent …
                  12 July 2013 at 1:11 pm

                  I am not a scientist. I listen to and read those who are. Yes I might be wrong, I’d like to be wrong. I know enough earth science to know shit from shinola. Thus what is written on Arctic-News makes sense.

                  I am not a scientist either, but I do have a BSc in earth sciences. The main guy at arctic news is in my opinion somewhat hysterical. Not in his sources or data, just in his habit of making his conclusions always being the absolute fringe end of probability. Basically in my opinion he is just another nutter who reads his predetermined faith into scientific papers without bothering to engage his brain. Reminds me of that other hysterical ranter on the other side – Watts

                  BTW: I’m currently in Samoa. Temperature currently about 31c and I have just been driving through the agricultural areas on the south east and north east coasts of upolu – an area producing food…. It’d take literally most of the fossil carbon in the world and several thousand years to make the south island of nz to have a similar climate.

                  Hysterial and ill informed ranting just makes you look ridiculous and makes it harder for more rational people to effect change.

                  • weka …
                    12 July 2013 at 6:22 pm

                    “The main guy at arctic news is in my opinion somewhat hysterical. Not in his sources or data, just in his habit of making his conclusions always being the absolute fringe end of probability.”

                    Thanks for that Lynn, a nice sucinct, quotable point.

                  • Macro …
                    12 July 2013 at 6:29 pm

                    Recently published study on Arctic warming, notes the Temperatures were 15 – 20 degrees warmer than today with 400 ppm. 😯

                    • lprent …
                      13 July 2013 at 1:44 pm

                      Yes and Greenland is sure to melt. And it looks to me like sustained (ie > a few centuries) at 400-500ppm CO2 will cause the WAIS to melt, possibly parts of EAIS as well. But the polar areas will be the extremes and the fastest to move. But we don’t currently farm polar regions.

                      Tropical and temperate zone temps will move a whole lot less. Exactly what any particular place will do depends largely on ocean and atmospheric circulation patterns and how they change with an increasing heatload. Somewhere like the south island is ideal as a isolated analytic location because it lives in the middle of an moderating ocean without continent disruptions and simple ocean currents and weather. It’s fragmented geologic record doesn’t show drastic shifts in climate in the past 40 million years. A few degrees up or down, and shifting rainfall patterns.

                      Other places especially in continents and around constrained oceans like the Atlantic or seas do. Climate shifts are both global in terms of the heat transfer process and gross effects like sea levels, and quite local in terms of other climatic effects. Depends where they are and what happens around them.

                      Looking at the climate record in central Australia you’d find no trace of the stability of the SI in that same 40my. It has been everything from arid waste to rain forest.

                      But you can’t look at an effect in the Arctic and expect the same to happen in the equatorial oceans or equatorial continent.

                    • Macro …
                      13 July 2013 at 8:02 pm

                      Completely agree. Interestingly the melting of Greenland is now thought not to be the main early contributor to SLR, but West Antarctica.

                      here: http://hot-topic.co.nz/richard-alley-what-we-know-now/

                      To quote Gareth:
                      “In this talk, recorded at the American Geophysical Union’s Chapman Conference on Climate Communication in Colorado recently, Richard Alley gives his overview of what we know about the state of the climate. As you might expect, he covers the cryosphere in some detail (why Greenland may not be as big a worry as West Antarctica), but he also has interesting things to say about climate sensitivity (same as it ever was), food production, and the possibility that chunks of the planet may become too hot for humans. Well worth watching…”

  12. Sable 12
    10 July 2013 at 11:13 am

    I would have to agree this government have an appalling track record on the environment. Its just not an issue for them.

    • Martin 12.1
      10 July 2013 at 8:30 pm

      You are right Sable, they don’t give a shit!

      They have failed to grasp the most basic principle of ecology:
      Without an environment you won’t have an economy. They are hungry ghosts.

  13. BLiP 13
    11 July 2013 at 1:01 am

    ‘

    Huh? Why would National Ltd™ care about “climate change”. I mean, have you seen its record on environmental matters? Since coming to power in 2008, the John Key led National Ltd™ government has . . .

    been caught out repeatedly lying in the run up to and during the election campaign about its real intentions in relation to the environment

    celebrated the opening of the foreign-owned Pike River Coal Ltd mine on DOC land adjacent to the Paparoa National Park from which 1 megatonne of coal will be extracted per year for the next 20 years – Pike River Coal Ltd has announced that it has found additional coal in the national park

    cancelled a proposed efficiency standard (MEPS) on incandescent lightbulbs

    reversed a moratorium on building new gas/oil/coal power stations

    removed the bio fuel subsidy

    scrapped the scheme that would have penalised imported vehicles producing high emissions

    removed regulations for water efficient new housing by Order in Council

    renewed leases on sensitive high country farms which were meant to return to DOC

    reversed restrictions on the freeholding of vast swathes of land on the edge of the Southern Lakes

    arbitrarily excised 400 hectares from the brand new Oteake Conservation Park, including the most important and, ecologically, the rarest part of the new Park, the tussock and shrubland that went right down to the banks of the Manuherikia River, to enable future access to lignite

    said nothing to say in regard to the World Commission on Protected areas of IUCN’s severe criticism of its intention to investigate mineral resources and mining opportunities in protected conservation areas including our three UNESCO World Heritage Sites of Te Wahi Pounamu-South West New Zealand, Tongariro National Park and the Sub Antarctic Islands

    approved two prospecting permit applications lodged by Australian iron-ore giant Fortescue Metals Group subsidiary FMG Pacific lodged in June – areas covered by the two-year permits include an 8204-square-kilometre area of seabed adjoining the west coast from Cape Reinga to the Manukau Harbour and a 3798-square-kilometre prospecting area of land from Cape Reinga to the Kaipara Harbour including Ninety Mile Beach, the west side of the Aupouri Peninsula, Kaitaia and the Hokianga.

    approved an additional prospecting permit for Fortescue Metals in relation to 3568sq km right next door to the Kahurangi National Park where the Heaphy Track is

    was forced to release its Ministry of Economic Development (MED) report under the Official Information Act that proclaims “significant mineral potential” in the Fiordland, Kahurangi and Paparoa national parks – the report said the Waitutu area of the Fiordland National Park had sufficient petroleum reserves to be “worthy” of inclusion in a review of conservation land protected from mining

    secretly granted the minerals industry the right to veto proposed National Park boundaries and permission for any such vetoes to be kept confidential – in spite of recommendations from its own officials against any such a veto

    called for caring New Zealanders to halt their “emotional hysteria” and recognise that conservation land should be mined for minerals and went on to say “Mining in a modern, technological way can have a negligible effect”

    rubished the Department of Conservation (“Canterbury Farming” June 2010 issue – now offline) suggesting it was incapable of looking after the high country reserves and parks under its control

    gutted the home insulation scheme

    pulled $300 million out of public transport, walking and cycling schemes and added it to a pot of $2 billion to ‘upgrade’ state highways

    changed the law to provide billions of dollar in subsidies for polluters via the ETS casino

    begun a process of gutting the Resource Management Act to make it difficult/impossible for the public to lodge appeals against developers

    removed the ability of Auckland to introduce a fuel levy to fund planned public transport upgrades

    left electrification of the Auckland rail network up in the air without promised funding commitments and then came through with a dodgy loan scheme and then unilaterally reorganised the local government structure before finally setting about the privatisation-by-stealth model when busting KiwiRail

    removed the programme to make Government Departments ‘carbon neutral’ and also began its first wave of public sector redundancies starting with the Ministry for the Environment which was responsible for the scheme

    removed funding for public tv advertising on sustainability and energy efficiency

    pulled funding for small-town public litter bin recycling schemes

    displayed cabinet ministers expressing public support the bulldozing of Fiordland

    reduced Department of Conservation funding by $54 million over three years

    cancelled funding for the internationally acclaimed ‘Enviroschools’ programme

    usurped the democratic role of local Councils of determining policies for their citizens by requiring the abandonment of the efficient and well-established tree protection rules for urban areas

    set about revamping Auckland governance in a way that is likely to greatly reduce the ‘Environmental Watchdog’ role of the the current Regional Council (since completely fucked it up with the SuperShitty)

    removed Auckland’s metropolitan limits and opened the gateway for unfettered urban sprawl

    defended internationally the importation of rain-forest-wrecking palm kernel and stood silent while Federated Farmers called Greenpeace “despicable” criminals, traitors, and robbers

    stood silent while Godfrey Bloom, a Member of the European Parliament and infamous Climate Change Denialist, publicly rejoiced in the 1985 bombing of the Greenpeace Rainbow Warrior – who was doing so while standing on a dock next to the replacement vessel

    took a 0% emissions reduction target to Copenhagen. Yes, seriously, that isn’t a misprint – that was the lower bound of their negotiation platform – then missed the 01/02/10 deadline for commitment to action it had agreed to – meanwhile 55 of the 80 countries which attended did make the deadline

    secretly cancelled the internationally recognised scheme for the mandatory labelling of exotic woods to ensure the timber has not been taken from rain forests in direct contradiction of its own statements made at the 13th World Forestry Congress in Argentina

    supported the Department of Conservation’s decision to open up the pristine Cathedral Cove to an ice-cream franchise

    gave the Department of Conservsation $1.7 million to further develop commercial activities on DOC land and started an “off set” plan allowing company’s to damage the conservation estate if they agree to improve land elsewhere – no monitoring regime has been suggested on put in place

    left DOC director-general Al Morrison to announce that DOC is to charge for services that had been free and, to soften the public up to the idea that there will be more “energy generation schemes” operating on DOC land

    took no action to reduce existing pollution pouring into the Manawatu River and is “leaving it up to industry” to come up with solutions to heal the river which was described by the Cawthorn Institute as “one of the worst polluted in the Western world”

    announced a $1.69 million industry subsidy to kick start marine farming without identifying no-go areas nor putting in place a consultation process for individiuals, communities, and other general coastal users

    been forced to release documents under the Official Information Act which confirm that DOC has “giving up” on ecologically valuable high-country land in the Mackenzie Basin because of funding cuts. The released documents cite “statements made by ministers”, “diminishing funding” and the Government’s new high-country policies as reasons for the changed stance – the comments from DOC were made after Land Information New Zealand (Linz), which manages the tenure review process, ignored DOC’s previous conservation recommendations for the farms

    used former National Party minister and current director of Open Country Cheese – a company convicted of filthy farming practices and found by the supreme court to be a dodgy employer – Wyatt Creech to head up an enquiry into Environment Canterbury which had been standing up the dairy farmers’ demands for more and more water resources and less and less regulation. The Creech report recommended the Environmental Canterbury be sacked and replaced with government appointments and the voters of Canterbury do without democracy until the water situation had been resolved. The Canterbury area holds 50 percent of New Zealand’s fresh water reserves and 50 percent of the water required for hyrdo energy. The Creech report said Environmental Centerbury put too much focus on the environment

    been subjected to international condemnation for knowing next to nothing about the parlous state of the New Zealand fisheries

    bucked international trends and poured more acid on the 100% Pure brand and increases the bluefin tuna quota

    squirmed when New Zealand is subject to international criticism for its backing of commericial whaling which National Ltd supports

    funded Government-owned company Solid Energy runs an essay competition entitled “ The role of coal in sustainable energy solutions for New Zealand” for school children. First prize is a trip to New Zealand’s largest coal customer, China.

    supported access fees for entrance onto DOC walkways – fee introduced following cuts to DOC’s budget.

    pressed on with PR bullshit about how New Zealand’s environment would profit from mining national parks, Conservation Minister Kate Wilkinson says.

    Department of Conservation director-general Al Morrison said the conservation estate created “opportunities to do a whole lot for a lot of different people . . . we’ve got to get away from this idea that somehow we have to protect one-third of New Zealand for a certain constituency and put it in a jar of formaldehyde and leave it

    created random fantasies of abundant wealth to promote all forms of mining

    ignored reports on sustained non-compliance with resource consents and worsening pollution of water ways.

    ignored its own Ministers possible conflicts of interest

    done nothing as both its own SOE Meridian and the Department of Conservation to withdraw appeals against an 85m high damn with a 14km long reservoir on conservation land.

    granted Energy Resources permission to ship Australian yellowcake uranium ore through New Zealand.

    apologised but does nothing else for breaching the Treaty of Waitangi by granting a mining exploration permit to Brazilian company Petrobras

    continued to remove environmental protection powers from local authorities

    totally reversed gains made in the protection of National Parks and other high-value conservation areas in the South Island.

    commenced a divide-and-rule strategy by attempting to paint New Zealanders interested in protecting the environment as outside of the “mainstream” and in defence of the fact that the media is catching to its bare-faced lies in the lead up to the 2008 election

    carried on with more lies by talking about modern mining like that at Reefton being carried out by Oceana Golds as being like “key hole surgery”

    appeared to believe that the tourists it is attempting to bring to New Zealand are all blind and won’t see for themselves the impact of the dairy farming it is subsidising to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars

    appeared itself to be blind when it comes to the Chairman of Fonterra

    forced the Commissioner for the Environment to delay the release of a report into the ramifications for climate change in regard to lignite mining and proposals to convert the lignite into diesel

    employed financial sleight of hand in shuffling funds towards business interests and away from community groups looking to protect the environment

    made more empty promises when a report showing that a third of New Zealand lankes have poor quality water is released

    backed down on promises to protect New Zealand children (and the environment cleaner by more informed disposal) from harmful chemicals by improving labeling and imposing mandatory standards on containers

    Ignored the findings by attacking the messenger when a World Health Organisation report confirms that New Zealand’s main centres have the worst air in Australasia and Auckland is the most polluted with twice the concentration of damaging airborne particles as Sydney.

    studiously ignored so as to take piss about dire warnings concerning the quality of drinking water in Reidstone

    failed to mention in its 100% Pure promotions that visitors to the Kerikeri Basin near the Stone Store – one of Northland’s iconic tourism and heritage sites – could come face-to-face with warning signs telling them the water is polluted

    failed to mention in its 100% Pure promotions that tourists in the Coromandel could come face to face with New Zealand’s environmental standards when finding hundreds of dead snapper washed up on Beaches

    presented bogus evidence concerning air pollution

    made more empty promises in relation to air pollution while also extending deadlines for local councils to reduce air pollution

    extended deadlines for businesses previously require to reduce air pollution by 2013

    put tourism operators in Akaroa at risk by refusing to make the harbour a marine reserve . . . and then rubs salt into their wounds

    done nothing after the United Nations finds that National Ltd™’s targets for reducing pollution are not consistent with the measures put in place to achieve those targets

    attempted to defend the Emissions Trading Scheme from comparisons with the Australian model while Environment Minister Nick Smith indicates there’s little chance of the two schemes being integrated any time soon

    then further slowed down the implentation of New Zealand’s Emissions Trading Scheme

    allowed major retailers to reap the benefits of its earlier and secret decision to abandon the mandatory labelling of exotic woods after it is found that the retailers are contributing to the death of native Australian forests despite an independent, year-long investigation which finds otherwise

    tried to keep a meeting between John Key and mininng company Anadarko’s boss secret. The company is responsble for a massive oil spill and is looking to to start drilling off New Zealand soon

    continued to ignore yet more evidence of farmers failing to comply with environmental regulations

    handed over $400 million to farmers to extend water storage and allow for more land to be used for dairy farms. No mention or provision is made for additional protections required to deal with the increased pollution

    failed to point out in its 100% Pure promotion that tourists (and locals) should avoid the Opihi River along State Highway 1 because of the risk of exposure to toxins from phormidium

    failed to point out in its 100% Pure promotions that tourists arriving at New Zealand’s “nuclear free” sea ports will be sharing the environment with up to 5,000 tonnes of radioactive yellow cake uranium

    lied about how bad the RMA is

    ignored top scientists and academics who point out that its underfunding of the Department of Conservation will send more species into extinction and hurt its 100% Pure image.

    Ignored John Key making an international arse out of himself in regard to New Zealand’s 100% Pure image

    carried on with its lies as New Zealand is identified as jeoparising its good name by allowing us to become one of a small number of states stalling progress in forming an international climate agreement
    kept stringing us along even after Next thing, New Zealand received the 2nd place Fossil Award for “proposing the most Flexible Mechanism imaginable with no oversight or review. Bring on the wild west. They want to be able to use any market mechanisms they wish with absolutely no oversight or international review! There would be no way to ensure that the units from one mechanism have not been sold two or three times to another such mechanism. This would likely unleash a wild west carbon market with double or triple counting of offsets and a likely increase of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.”

    stood silent when Fonterra was caught out lying by overstating its farmer’s compliance on excluding stock from waterways by 100%

    put World class surfing waves and Maui’s dolphin’s at Raglan at severe risk by encouraging a proposed iron ore seabed mining in New Zealand’s coastal waters

    never followed up after the scientific models created by New Zealand and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) to allow fishing are called into question

    set the scene for our children heading down to the park to find an overseas’ owned company had set up a dairy farm in one corner. Over time the shit builds up

    ignored data which shows the expansion of fish-farming in the Marlborough Sounds could cause unacceptable changes in the coastal environment

    strategically removed the word “environment” from the lexicon of local and central government

    failed to tell the tourists it hopes to attact with its 100% Pure campaign that every year, New Zealand drops huge quantities of poison-laced food into its forest ecosystems; enough poison to kill its human population 4 times over, every year. No country has ever done anything remotely similar, on such a scale

    failed to tell the tourists it hopes to attract with its 100% Pure campaign that more than a third of Auckland’s beaches fail water quality checks and are closed for swimming

    ignored the closing of the beaches, this time as extremely high concentrations of the bacteria enterococci are identified
    ignored Ministerial conflicts of interest, this time involving John Key who is identified as shareholder in the Bank Of America which is backing mining in New Zealand and Australia . . . even when more information is made available . . . and more information . . . and more information

    pressed on with additional policies that move away from the protection of the environment towards exploitation

    limited , as part of its effort to cash-in on the environment, access to some of New Zealand’s most endangered species and isolated islands only to those who those who contribute financially displacing conservation staff and scientists

    ignored a World Wildlife Fund report, Beyond Rio, which makes clear New Zealand now risks some of the highest rates of biodiversity loss on Earth unless urgent action is taken

    continued to give confidence to Fonterra director Colin Armer being convicted and fined $72,000 for “fouling” a Bay of Plenty waterway after a judge found he could have prevented the pollution were it not for his “systemic” failure to monitor what was happening on his company’s farm

    lied when it said New Zealand has the environmental laws and regulations to control oil and gas development on the continental shelf because there is no equivalent of the Resource Management Act to control oil and gas activity outside of the territorial sea (12 nautical miles offshore).
    lied when it had already agreed coastal plans to allow marine farming consent holders in the Waikato and Marlborough to move from mussel farming to finfish farming without considering the additional environmental effects imposed

    placed short-term business interests ahead of long-term consequences to New Zealand’s environment, particularly biodiversity by allowing damage in one area on the condition that it be “off set” in another creating a dangerous precedent in that such a provisin means that one part of biodiversity can be wrecked in return for “protecting” an area that was never under threat anyway.

    promoted proposals that include include a plant producing about 2 billion litres of diesel per year, using at least 12 million tonnes of lignite per year and another producing 3 billion litres using 12-17 million tonnes of lignite annually. A further project would produce by 2016 1.2 tonnes of the nitrogenous fertiliser, urea, using 2 million tonnes of lignite annually

    tried to hide the fact that its Department of Conservation was ordered to permit Meridian to to build a damn on the Mohikinui River despite its position that “the public conservation land within the Mokihinui River has such high value that it is most unlikely to be suitable for exchange at all

    continued to ignore the slow-motion extinction of Maui’s dolphins:

    gone into hiding after it was discovered that significant cuts to the Ministry for the Environment in the 2012 Budget are not publicly detailed or announced

    continued to ignore its international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to “protect and preserve” the martime environment

    refused in the face of repeated calls to set national standards for water quality despite mounting evidence of the need to do so

    further weakened protection for wild rivers in Canterbury with the ECan Act and indicates that further weakening provisions will follow.

    rubber stamped a motorway project with no economic benefit and likely to waste over $1 billion of tax payers’ funds.

    been forced to admit that it has spent $1.67 million in a survey of minerals on the West Coast of New Zealand, including within the Te Wahipounamu South West New Zealand world heritage area. Te Wahipounamu is one of 183 natural heritage

    secretly ordered that world heritage sites on the West Coast be surveyed as part of a $3 million mineral study spanning more than 16,000 square kilometres. The survey was only puiblicy revealed after Green MP Catherine Delahunty asked for details in a parliamentary question

    appointed thoroughtly unsuitable but politically useful members to the Establishment Board for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

    facilitated by neglect the employment of inexperienced managers, making poor policy decisions resulting in additional threats to New Zealand’s biosecurity.

    under resourced New Zealand’s biosecurity system to such an extent that it is fundamentally flawed preventing any way of identifying how the Kiwifruit killer virus got into New Zealand and, thus, no way of preventing it from happening again.

    handed over a further $80 million to business and farmers to subsidise their pollution.

    ignored its own guidelines to provide consent the Milford Dart tunnel and Fiordland Link Experience which would otherwise never have been granted.

    appointed an advisory group to recommend a significant rewrite of the Resource Management Act to remove references to the protection of coastal areas, wetlands, lakes and rivers and indigenous flora and fauna.

    splashed tax payer cash around its consultants considering conservation and environmental protection of the Mackenze Basin and Waitaki Valley

    further weakened the resource consent process for foreign-owned mining companies,

    locked New Zealanders out of the consultation process on the alloting of areas being made available for resource exploration.

    ignored the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and scrapped government grants for solar water heating

    used the Navy along with police and Crown Law to bully environmental protesters in a legal case they knew could not be won

    put 23 massive blocks of deep and wild waters east of Wellington and Dunedin on the international market for exploratory oil drilling

    allowed its own consultants do a u-turn on the economic benefits of additional roading and then handed them a $200 million contract for further consultation work

    Supported the Department of Conservation into granting foreign-owned multinational mining company OceanaGold permission to destroy 55 hectares of beech forest so as to extend its Reefton mine to a total 81 hectares without public notification

    envouraged the Minerals Industry Association to bully local authorities to step aside from what little environmental protections they are able to impose

    reduced its environment agencies to little more than a ramshackle collection of underfunded and ineffective small back offices with no direction or policy for dealing with the vast marine resources of New Zealand

    eroded New Zealand’s bio-security to such an extent that Christchurch Airport is found to have failed at a basic level

    removed the directive terms “protect”, “preserve”, “maintain” and “enhance” from the RMA fundamentally weakening the legislation and deliberately introducing confusion as to its overall intent.

    futher ensured that New Zealand tax payers continue to subsidise 95% of big polluters’ emissions

    drastically reduced the size of proposed marine reserves off the West Coast so much so that one advocate says they are “an insult” to those who spent years trying to establish them

    instructed its delegates at the world’s largest conservation conference , the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s conference in Korea, to oppose any further measures to protect Maui and Hector dolphins in defiance of 117 other countries and 460 environmental organisations requesting New Zealand ban gill and trawl nets in waters up to 100 metres deep

    lied about the environmental impact of fraking

    refused to enforce its own legislation to protect the environment

    ignored concerns about fracking which has seen the practise banned around the world

    twisted the knife by exploiting news of redundancies at Solid Energy in a statement which claims opponents to a proposed mine are “getting in the way of” potential jobs as part of an effort to discourage legal action

    changed to law allowing a consideration of the effects on climate change to allow Australian-owned mining company Bathurst Resources (also known as Buller Coal) to build a 200-hectare open-cast coal mine on the plateau and excavate 80 million tonnes of coal that, when burnt, will release about 200 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere

    further ensured the extinction of New Zealand sea lions by failing to extend necessary fishing restrictions

    failed to protect the New Zealand marine environment and ignored international obligation with its Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf Act oil drilling legislation

    continued to obfuscate and dither while More than half of monitored recreational sites on our rivers are declared unsafe for swimming

    ignored its own scientific evidence and advice from its own authorities to lock-in tax payer funding of business which pollutes New Zealand’s air

    refused to enforce its own laws in respect to water pollution

    changed the law to make it more difficult to build a deck on a house than it is to drill for oil

    avoided its international obligations “to ensure the conservation and management of sharks and their long-term sustainable use” while its fishers carry on with the barbaric practise of shark finning.

    ignored public support for conservation by ordering another round of cuts to the Department of Conservation.

    stood alone at the world’s largest conservation summit and voted against more protection for species at risk

    further gutted environmental protection legislation to speed up the building consent process for developers

    vancelled without notice the five-yearly State of the Environment report put together by the Ministry of the Environment, the report is the largest stock-take of trends relating to land, water, air, plants and animals

    abandoned the Kyoto agreement completely

    allowed its on lobbyist to publicly attack a prominent New Zealand scientist for speaking truth about New Zealand’s environment in an effort to silence the accurate reporting of scientific evidence

    attracted international mockery for the fact that the pristine landscape featured in The Hobbit and used as the basis for the 100% Pure New Zealand campaign as fantastical as dragons and wizards

    remained “relaxed” about the fact that New Zealand is now the 18th worst out of 189 nations when it came to preserving its natural environment

    pulled out of Kyoto just weeks after the OECD reports that global greenhouse gas emissions could rise 50 per cent by 2050 without more ambitious climate policies, as fossil fuels continue to dominate the energy mix

    laughed when New Zealand received two “Fossil of the Day” – first-equal and second place – awards on the first day of international climate talks in Doha, Qatar

    used Hobbiton – Waikato – as the centrepiece of its 100% Pure campaign when the area is the country’s major source of pollution to the Hauraki Gulf

    handed over responsibility for the monitoring and reporting of fraking activity , for which it has inadequate legal protections, to the foreign-owned multi-nationals which are carrying out that activity thus totally ignoring its own Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

    lied, obfuscated and used government resources to attack and undermined local authority plans to improve water quality
    sanctioned an unnamed foreign-owned multinational to go ahead with a major road through pristine South Island National Parks

    employed disingenuous gobbledeegook to defend its decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Agreement.

    turned a deaf ear to calls for New Zealand to assist pacfic island nations by taking a stronger position on climate change

    displayed contempt for existing agreements and Environment Case law by approving new salmon farms in recreational areas within the Marlborough Sounds

    refused to investigate the impact on increasing use of neonicotinoid pesticides which is likely to be a major contributor to the sudden and dramatic decline (aka colony collapse disorder) of the New Zealand honey bee population, National Ltd™ also refused to consider the development of a strategy to protect what is left of the honey bee population.

    lied about its commitment to addressing climate change

    failed to monitor Sanford Ltd’s pollution resulting in an international embarrassment

    allowed foreign-owned multinationals to proceed with oil exploration without the financial resources available to mitigate any environmental damage should it occur

    been caught out ignoring its own advice on implementing environmental monitoring procedures

    used changes to the Resource Management Act to remove local authorty’s rights and planning for the protection of trees

    commenced removing local authority’s rights to plan for housing

    allowed more than 53 percent of Canterbury’s major water users to avoid having meters installed

    mixed the cooperative model of climate change negotiations with the competitive model used in trade negotiations, thus putting outcomes in both areas a risk

    ducked questions asking for evidence as to the safety of genetically engineered food

    ignored the fact that New Zealand carbon credits are no longer the unit of choice in the New Zealand’s own carbon market. Figures from the official Emission Unit Registry show that emitters who initially supported NZUs are now using a range of international units to meet their carbon obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme

    used highly dodgy figures in calculating the reduction New Zealand’s net carbon emissions by including trees due to be harvested in the next few years

    ignored news that New Zealand’s first glyphosate resistant weed has been found and the resulting call for the use of glyphosate (Monsanto’s “Roundup”) to cease

    stayed silent for five months after being advised that Fonterra’s milk product were contaminated with dicyandiamide (DCD) and now face an international backlash.

    set no maximum level of contamination of dicyandiamide (DCD) (AKA cyanoguanidine) in milk products for consumption by New Zealanders, stood silent while the farming industry says the withdrawal of dicyandiamide (DCD) will result in yet more pollution of New Zealand’s waterways

    stood silent as NIWA announced findings of research which showed 20 per cent of marine life in the Milford Sounds port area could be killed off as a result of copper leaching from anti-fouling paints on boat hulls

    secretly without consultation and any right of appeal used a short-term draconian law to ammend a water conservation order for the Rakaia River

    been locked out of the international carbon market because of its trucculent attitude

    continued in its efforts to eliminate tree protection of any kind in Auckland and elsewhere

    stood alone as the only developed country not to have tabled an unconditional single number target as part of the international climate change negotiations

    cut funding into research about protecting the last remaining giant kauri

    continued to endanger the 100% Pure brand

    been unable to explain how genetically engineered mould escaped from Massey University laboratories and remains unable or unwilling to provide further information

    introduced foreign species without a consideration of the risk to human health

    allowed oil companies to ignore breaches of resource consent and set neihhbours against neighbours

    obfuscated on the negative economic benefits of major raod works

    obfuscated on the level of cuts to the Department of Conservation

    disengaged the previously widely held concept of environmental protection from any consideration of economic development

    sacked 140 staff at the Department of Conservation

    inserted last minute changes to environmental legislation that were not announced and, thus, not considered during public submissions and earlier readings of Bills.

    lied about the practise of fracking going on in New Zealand for the past 30 years

    funded its Economic Development Ministry’s membership of the Coal Association lobby group

    staged a consultation process on the restructuring for the Department of Conservation and then completely ignored any submissions generated

    proposed handing over recreational paua gathering areas to commercial operators

    opened a further 190,000 square kilometers of New Zealand’s coastal waters for oil exploration

    allowed the Minister of Energy’s own political adviser to make public calls for the boycotting of the environmental iniative Earth House

    held secret meetings with oil company executives known international as irresponsible and mendacious

    exposed Auckland beaches to the unmonitored risk of oil exploration by companies unable to afford any clean up operations if required

    breached international law and used parliamentary urgency and ignored international guidelines to rush through legislation depriving New Zealanders of the right to protest against drilling for oil within 350 miles if New Zealand coast

    given permission for oil drilling to take place over earthquake ridden continental plate fault lines just off shore from Wellington

    stood idle while water quality used by households continyes to worsen

    ensured that the MacKenzie Basin is turned from a conservation estate into a development area

    used parliamentary urgency to avoid public notification, consultation and/or consideration of a law allowing companies with no experience nor financial resources to drill for oil on earthquake-ridden fault lines lying in New Zealand coastal waters

    here would be significant and irreversible adverse effects on the conservation values and overall ecological integrity of the application area and the Denniston Plateau should the proposed activity be approved”?

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0903/S00452.htm <— back up on Chris Bishop

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10869801 <— irony much

    It is disgusting that if you are a sportsperson you get no conviction for an offence that endangered peoples lives because it might affect their ability to play overseas, but an actress convicted for taking part in an environmental protest gets no such consideration.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1306/S00244/savage-attack-on-bee-health.htm

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1306/S00240/positive-changes-to-fishing-regulations-announced.htm

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1306/S00219/report-highlights-risk-of-governments-mining-agenda.htm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10892481

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/pollution/news/article.cfm?c_id=281&objectid=10884397

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10892985

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1306/S00647/new-zealand-waste-policies-stuck-in-the-past.htm

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1306/S00309/environment-commissioner-releases-water-report-update.htm

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1307/S00024/iwc-says-govt-must-act-for-survival-of-mauis-dolphins.htm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10895428

    . . . but wait, there's more!

  14. weka 14
    11 July 2013 at 3:16 pm

    BLiP, have you thought about getting a blog? You could still post here, but if you had your own blog as well, then it’s easier to spread the word with links to your lists. I think they would get more coverage, esp if the blog looked professional.

    • BLiP 14.1
      12 July 2013 at 3:00 pm

      ‘

      Hmmmm . . . might not be a bad idea. I was kinda hoping my front page posts here would have attracted a little more attention and I have had very little success in posting my various lists on other blogs because they get caught in spam filters and then never approved. But, yeah, something definitely worth considering. Thanks, I’ll have a look at what options are available, costs, anonymity potential and so on.

  15. Seemorerocks 15
    12 July 2013 at 6:04 pm

    It seems to me that those of you that are trying to discredit Guy McPherson are ignoring the facts.

    Most of what we see about climate change is based on computer models done by climate scientists who tend to specialise and be conservative in what they say. In turn the IPCC reprots are an exercise in science by concensus.

    The projections of the IPCC have been well-and-truly overtaken by actual events on the ground.

    Most of the effects of warming are to be seen, not in places like NZ, but in Arctic – also the vast majority of energy is going into the oceans, into the Arctic (also BTW, the Antarctic), into the melting of polar ice. We may yet see an ice-free Arctic (at the minumum, which is Sept) this year, if not, by 2014-5.

    In addition to this a number of positive feedbacks have been observed (12 at last count), the most significant of which is the release of methane from the permafrost, and, more alarmingly, from the oceans. These phenomena are supposed to happen in the future, if nothing is done – but are happening now.

    These feedbacks have been observed, but, to date, only one has been studied in depth, by the Arctic Emergency Group.

    Basically what all this means is that “the hotter it gets the faster it gets hotter” – this is an exponential growth. So the projections of a 2C-4C become unrealistic and we can expect to see much higher increases that will make agriculture of ANY description, including permaculture, impossible.

    Guy McPherson, at least, in my books, is being intellectually honest in that he has actually modified his position (and continues to do so) based on the facts.

    I agree there is no certainty in this, but on the balance of probabilities, based on the info we have, I suspect he is right. If you spend enough time looking at what he is saying you you find his sources.

    In the mantime I have written a couple of essays

    http://robinwestenra.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/near-term-human-extinction.html

    In the second I have supplied some references – I suggest you look at them

    http://robinwestenra.blogspot.co.nz/2013/06/near-term-human-extinction.html