Groser and National have a plan to save the world from global warming

Written By: - Date published: 7:00 pm, December 6th, 2014 - 61 comments
Categories: climate change, Environment, global warming, national, same old national, you couldn't make this shit up - Tags:

climate change head in sand-1I kid you not.

Tim Groser and National have a plan to solve global warming so cunning you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel.

The plan apparently is the only game in town and it is hard line.  And according to Groser unless the world agrees to New Zealand’s proposal there will be no agreement.

The plan is … [drumroll] …

Wait for it …

Countries will be obliged to set targets but not obliged to meet them.

These are the pearls of wisdom that have come from the one person who can solve the world’s climate change problems.

“So the problem here is this. China, which is now the world’s largest emitter, although doing very serious things now in this space, is never going to commit to meeting a target and if it fails, be accountable legally for failing to do this. They will, however, do serious stuff. Therefore, the United States, given the Congress, will never agree to a different legal structure to China.

“So my view, and it’s a real hard-line view here, I think it’s a black and white situation. This deal will be based on the underlying concepts of the New Zealand proposal or there won’t be a deal.”

Apparently the problem is that all the pressure went onto the European Union and other countries that signed up to Kyoto like New Zealand, Australia, the United States, Canada and Russia.  Coincidentally these countries are most of the biggest producers of greenhouse gasses so this is not surprising but like rich people being asked to do something about poverty they are demanding that the poor share the burden.

Groser needs to go back to the drawing board.  The only thing that matters is the reduction in the burning of coal and petroleum and the reduction in the production of methane.  And the planting of trees, many many many trees.

Groser’s grand statements will not achieve this.  And as can be seen by the trends New Zealand’s performance is exceptionally poor and the chances of us meeting our historically agreed obligations are miniscule.

I normally try and be discrete and respectful in my blogging but climate change is one of those issues where my tolerance of stupidity is running low.  So let me say this as clearly as I can, Tim Groser is a muppet.

If you want to express your views on Aotearoa’s response to climate change you can with many others put your head in the sand tomorrow.  A more fitting description of this Government’s response I cannot think of.

61 comments on “Groser and National have a plan to save the world from global warming ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ad 1
    6 December 2014 at 7:18 pm

    Give a guy a Security Council seat and immediately his balls are too big for his pants.

    Groser – despite the full backing of most major corporations in the world and most of the major governments – has utterly failed to pull of the TPP. Playa he ain’t.

    His special place in hell will be at the front of the a titanic screaming “I’m the king of the worrrrrrrrrrrrrld!” as the proverbial ship crunches into the ice.

    • David H 1.1
      7 December 2014 at 8:38 am

      That and speaking for hours and hours and hours, without saying anything at all. Just Bullshit piled upon Bullshit all the way.

  2. Poission 2
    6 December 2014 at 8:17 pm

    The US Senate rejected ratification of the KP 95-0, ie the Byrd -Hagel resolution.

    http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html

  3. tc 3
    6 December 2014 at 8:41 pm

    The best move Nat did with tiny mind timmy is keep him out of NZ as much as possible. One very dim bulb just bright enough to follow street directions to the next trough.

    Watch out for clean coal as a sure sign him and Oz’s hunt are snouting it up large together

  4. batweka 4
    6 December 2014 at 9:19 pm

    Meanwhile, down south. An animated graphic from new NASA research showing how the West Antarctic ice melt will probably happen much faster than expected and may lead to 3.5m sea rises.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/research-casts-alarming-light-on-decline-of-west-antarctic-ice-sheets/2014/12/04/19efd3e4-7bbe-11e4-84d4-7c896b90abdc_story.html

    For two decades, scientists have kept a close watch on a vast, icebound corner of West Antarctica that is undergoing a historic thaw. Climate experts have predicted that, centuries from now, the region’s mile-thick ice sheet could collapse and raise sea levels as much as 11 feet.

    Now, new evidence is causing concern that the collapse could happen faster than anyone thought. New scientific studies this week have shed light on the speed and the mechanics of West Antarctic melting, documenting an acceleration that, if it continues, could have major effects on coastal cities worldwide.

    Twin papers this week show that the rate of ice loss from West Antarctica is increasing — with the acceleration particularly pronounced in the past decade — and also why this is happening: Warmer ocean waters are pushing up from below and bathing the base of the ice sheet.

    • RedLogix 4.1
      6 December 2014 at 9:27 pm

      Yes. NZ’s own Prof Tim Naish was saying this for a while now. I could be wrong, but his personal opinion at the time was that there was evidence of earlier WAIS breakups occurring over periods of just a decade or so.

      http://thestandard.org.nz/unassailable-evidence/

      That post was five fucking years ago.

      • batweka 4.1.1
        6 December 2014 at 9:52 pm

        This is why the post-election argument that it’s not ok to criticise people for not voting doesn’t wash with me. It’s now or never folks. We already know the worst case scenario is utterly catastrophic but we are working on the assumption we might get lucky and get away with the best case scenario. Or maybe people just don’t care.

      • Colonial Rawshark 4.1.2
        6 December 2014 at 10:36 pm

        Our global civilisation won’t be ended by any single shock. But a serious of severe ones which shake the fabric of the status quo apart. A 3.5m sea level rise over 10-20 years would generate most of those shocks all by itself.

        • batweka 4.1.2.1
          6 December 2014 at 10:57 pm

          Not so sure about that. Look at how quickly Japan recovered after Fukushima. 10 – 20 years sounds like a fair amount of time. Of course, we wouldn’t be relocating civ in that time, it’d be downsizing massively.

          I tend to think loss of coastal land is one of the lesser AGW worries. Increasing droughts and storms (esp wind) concern me more, and tipping points that collapse whole ecosystems, along with all the stupid we are doing instead of preparing (if we get lucky and don’t end up with worst case scenarios, the things that fuck us will be our own actions, like draining aquifers to send milk powder to China).

          • Colonial Rawshark 4.1.2.1.1
            7 December 2014 at 12:36 am

            Look at how quickly Japan recovered after Fukushima.

            ??? Uh, I don’t think so.

            Yes, ecosystem collapse is more serious than a 1m-2m sea level rise, but the latter still screws up the lives of a billion or more people.

            • batweka 4.1.2.1.1.1
              7 December 2014 at 8:59 am

              Sorry, I meant the quake and tsunami. Japan’s ability to recover in terms of infrastructure was impressive (esp compare to Chch). Not wanting to downplay the ongoing suffering or damage because of the nuclear plant issues.

              “Yes, ecosystem collapse is more serious than a 1m-2m sea level rise, but the latter still screws up the lives of a billion or more people.”

              True, and as usual the poorest people will get hit the hardest. Nevertheless, in places like NZ, having to move and adjust down majorly but still having enough to eat, good shelter, ways to make a living, intact communities etc, these are all pretty good all things considered.

      • Chooky 4.1.3
        7 December 2014 at 8:53 am

        yes and about 10- 15 years before the Christchurch Earthquakes a scientist was warning that Christchurch could have a catastrophic earthquake….no one really listened…because Christchurch seemed so safe and flat and soft ..not like Wellington sitting astride two tectonic plates….ha ha…

        ….maybe if the authorities had listened to the scientist’s warnings about Christchurch they would have been a lot more careful about massive underground water extraction out of the Christchurch/ Waimakariri hinterland.

        http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/9381274/Rising-flood-risk-in-a-sunken-city

        Lesson: listen to the scientists

    • joe90 4.2
      6 December 2014 at 9:29 pm

      A narrated version of the video.

  5. Lloyd 5
    6 December 2014 at 9:24 pm

    I find it interesting that every time the Herald reports on global warming that there is always another report in the same edition on how the government won’t spend money on the rapid construction of Auckland’s Central Rail Loop. Anyone who looks at Auckland (and therefore New Zealand’s) CO2 production must realise that building the CRL is the quickest way to reduce the use of fossil fuels in the city and therefore is a significant potential step the reduce the global warming contribution from NZ,

  6. PipAlbany 6
    6 December 2014 at 9:39 pm

    The only thing that matters is the reduction in the burning of coal and petroleum and the reduction in the production of methane

    New Zealand as big producers of this should quiver ….

  7. batweka 7
    6 December 2014 at 10:29 pm

    “And the planting of trees, many many many trees.”

    As important as that, we need to shift to regenerative agriculture. Perennial pasturing and polycropping rebuilds soil and sequesters carbon. It’s not a silver bullet, we still desparately need to reduce emissions asap. But it also happens to be the solution to drought, Peak Soil, and shifting to a post-peak oil society.

    “Healthy grasslands, livestock and associated livelihoods constitute a win-win option for addressing climate change in fragile dryland areas where pastoralism remains the most rational strategy for the wellbeing of communities,”

    “It is a win-win scenario for sequestering carbon, reversing environmental degradation and improving the health, well-being and long term sustainability of livestock based livelihoods.”

    UN discussion paper Review of evidence on drylands pastoral systems and climate change – Implications and opportunities for mitigation and adaptation

    http://www.carbonranching.org/INTRO/Discussion_Paper.pdf

    .

    Bioneers: What’s the most important agricultural climate change practice?

    Darren: We can start to build more soil carbon into the equation because that’s one of the great buffers against climate change. Not only does it download atmospheric carbon out of the process, but it also creates a resiliency against the biggest problem in a lot of zones where there has been reliable rainfall in the past and now rainfall is unreliable.

    Bioneers: How does carbon farming work?

    Darren: There’s an amount of carbon right above any landscape that can be utilized, primarily in the form of carbon dioxide and other carbon compounds that soil organisms, plants and others use as nutrients.

    We’re looking to create systems that hold more of that carbon in the organisms and the residues of those organisms for the longest possible times, and then take advantage of the benefits that the diversity and the residues provide. Whether that’s residues in the form of humus, which is a very stable carbon-compound, or whether it’s residues in terms of a leaf litter that’s on the soil surface, which reduces evaporation.

    We’re trying to increase the retention time of carbon in its solid form in landscapes for as long as possible as opposed to allowing it to become gaseous, that’s when it becomes quite dangerous to us all. That is what carbon farming is all about.

    http://www.bioneers.org/agriculture-climate-change-interview-darren-doherty/

    .

    Experimental design using two rangelands (a valley grassland and a coastal grassland), with untreated controls and treatment sites with a single application of ½ inch of commercially available composted organic green waste. Both sites are composed largely of nonnative annual grasses. The field experiment continued for three growing seasons. All plots were grazed using a rotational regime typical of the region during the spring and fall for up to four weeks, depending on the amount of available forage.

    Sequestration of just 1 Mg C ha-1 y-1 (or one metric ton per hectare) on half the rangeland area in California would offset 42 million metric tons of CO2e, an amount equivalent to the annual GHG emissions from energy use for commercial and residential sectors in California.

    http://www.marincarbonproject.org/science/land-management-carbon-sequestration

    • RedLogix 7.1
      6 December 2014 at 11:04 pm

      Thank you. There is enormous potential in these ideas. Technology alone will not provide enough new energy or sufficient savings.

      An agricultural revolution has to be the other component.

      • batweka 7.1.1
        6 December 2014 at 11:20 pm

        The great thing is that regenag farmers are already doing this and so have built up the expertise for others to follow. This is happening in NZ too. And now the universities and scientists are increasingly looking at this thanks to pioneers in those spheres. I still don’t see a lot in the public domain that is easy for the public to get to grips with (or politicians), so I guess the next step will be getting journos and NGOs with PR and education budgets on board. Not holding my breath about the govt, but I should go look at whether the GP are on board.

        • RedLogix 7.1.1.1
          6 December 2014 at 11:24 pm

          Another area we are actively pursuing right now is aquaponics. One of several pioneering experts is located within an hours drive and we’re definitely planning a visit soon.

        • b waghorn 7.1.1.2
          7 December 2014 at 8:03 am

          One thing that is becoming more common is no tillage direct drilling of crops as farmers are realising the value of keeping carbon and moisture in the soil, its cheaper to which will help with the more hard headed old timers.

          • batweka 7.1.1.2.1
            7 December 2014 at 8:29 am

            Do you know if the farmer advisors are getting on board with this?

            • b waghorn 7.1.1.2.1.1
              7 December 2014 at 8:45 am

              No sorry I Havn’t had much to do with consultants. There’s a chap buy the name of Dr John Baker doing good work with cross slot no tillage in Palmerston north.

            • b waghorn 7.1.1.2.1.2
              7 December 2014 at 9:02 am

              Another guy doing good stuff is Doug Avery he’s farming some of the hardest dry land in nz with Lucerne instead of irrigation and spreading his knowledge.

    • b waghorn 7.2
      7 December 2014 at 8:07 am

      There has been a compost trial going on in south Canterbury since about 09

  8. One Anonymous Bloke 8
    7 December 2014 at 7:27 am

    Theatre, theatre, read all about it: New Zealand brokers pre-arranged agreement to do nothing, National Party profits in the short term.

    Meanwhile, on Earth, primary insurers face “rising income uncertainty and more volatile results”, which is a lovely euphemism for “massive losses that they will pass on to their customers”.

  9. Matthew Hooton 9
    7 December 2014 at 8:07 am

    Do you think NZ should tell China it must sign up to a legally binding target?
    And say what?
    “Or else”?
    Do you think that would be effective?
    If not, what would you do?

    • phillip ure 9.1
      7 December 2014 at 8:20 am

      more pettifogging from hooton..

      ..it must be a day ending in a ‘y’…

      ..what wd u do..?

      ..or r u just on a default do-nothing! setting..?

      ..like most other tories..

      • Matthew Hooton 9.1.1
        7 December 2014 at 9:18 am

        You think trying to achieve a climate deal that can be supported by all of China, US, EU, India and Brazil is trivial and petty?
        Whereas, say, placing a floor on the price of an NZU would be something important and serious?

        • phillip ure 9.1.1.1
          7 December 2014 at 10:49 am

          u r a professional pettifogger..it’s what you do..

          ..with every important issue…working for yr tory masters..

          ..you drape those issues with irrelevancies..

          ..u cloud the waters..

          ..and it is no difference here..

          ..we should be leading the world in our adoption of the changes needed..

          ..we aren’t..we use the lucky accident of our high levels of renewable energy,,as the reason/excuse to do s.f.a.else…

          ..and u r here supporting this govt and their do-nothing/s.f.a. stances around climate-change.

          ..so take yr faux-outrage at being called out..and stick it somewhere…eh..?

        • Psycho Milt 9.1.1.2
          7 December 2014 at 10:57 am

          It will be supported because it doesn’t require anyone to do anything – which makes it, yes, trivial. Witness the fact that the NZ government hasn’t actually set the ball rolling by committing to an emissions cut itself, and has implemented an ETS specifically designed to offer the appearance of having an ETS without suffering any of the consequences of actually having one. The other countries will understand hypocrisy very well and it’s on that basis they’ll be willing to sign up.

    • mickysavage 9.2
      7 December 2014 at 8:29 am

      Thanks Matthew.

      I would not be promoting New Zealand’s position as “the only game in town” and “hard-line”. It is not. It is a weak cop out that will continue to do nothing about climate change.

      • Matthew Hooton 9.2.1
        7 December 2014 at 9:16 am

        That still doesn’t say what you would do.
        And given the NZ proposal is the only one that BOTH the US and China might possibly support, and which might have an outside change of being ratified by the US Congress, that does make it “the only game in town” doesn’t it?

        • Poission 9.2.1.1
          7 December 2014 at 9:39 am

          that does make it “the only game in town” doesn’t it?

          The US/China agreement is a non antagonistic game,insofar as it is an agreement for fair play principles by temporal bounds only.

          It eliminates the idealistic constraint of affixing an arbitrary number to subjective opinions.

          the so called fair play games allow each (both developed and developing countries) to develop systems that are compatible with their own internal resources to reduce emissions. eg Svirezhev

          http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~bloh/publications/svirezhev99a/welcome.html

  10. les 10
    7 December 2014 at 8:32 am

    Nobel Prize winner Al Gore in 20007…’the ice cap is falling off a cliff.It could be completely gone in summer in as little as 7 years from now’!-2014 Record Antarctic sea ice recorded….global warming…yeah right!

    • Te Reo Putake 10.1
      7 December 2014 at 9:26 am

      Gore was referring to land ice. Melting land ice contributes to an increase in sea ice. It’s actually proof that Gore was correct, les.

      • les 10.1.1
        7 December 2014 at 10:33 am

        so when he says ‘ice cap’ he means land ice…because!

        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.1.1.1
          7 December 2014 at 10:50 am

          Because he’s a politician relaying information (and an entry on the “Climate Denial Bingo” card), not a peer-reviewed journal.

        • Murray Rawshark 10.1.1.2
          7 December 2014 at 6:39 pm

          Yes he does. An ice cap is ice on land. The equivalent over water is called an ice sheet. Try harder next time.

          • les 10.1.1.2.1
            8 December 2014 at 8:54 am

            heres definition…’An extensive dome-shaped or platelike perennial cover of ice and snow that spreads out from a center and covers a large area, especially of land.’=ice cap….p.s I know’ ice’ is not land.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 10.2
      7 December 2014 at 9:45 am

      Les apparently can’t conceive of a reason increasing Antarctic sea ice might be evidence of a problem. A wingnut of very little brain.

      • Te Reo Putake 10.2.1
        7 December 2014 at 9:58 am

        Apparently the paid deniers have been promoting this bunkum in recent months. Happily, quite a few actual science articles have popped up to debunk it. But you can see how, at a superficial level, it can fool folk like les. The good news is that climate change is accepted almost without dispute these days. The bad news is that the corporations who are the primary cause of it are fighting bitterly to keep polluting.

        • les 10.2.1.1
          7 December 2014 at 10:32 am

          yes , a lay person like myself finds it hard to line these things up.Very skeptical when I look at things like the so called ‘good nutriton’ pyramid that gets turned upside down or reshuffled quite frequently.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 10.2.1.1.1
            7 December 2014 at 10:48 am

            Really, Les. What fundamental principles of greenhouse Physics have been “turned upside down” since 1896?

          • Psycho Milt 10.2.1.1.2
            7 December 2014 at 12:17 pm

            les – nutrition guidelines are based on social science, ie they’re effectively opinion-based and should be treated as such. AGW is based on demonstrable principles of physics, eg changing the mix of gases in the atmosphere has effects that are predictable. The two things aren’t comparable. The only arguments left re AGW are about how much of an effect, and how that translates into actual conditions experienced by humans – those are based on computer-modelling and therefore subject to argument, but AGW itself isn’t.

            • les 10.2.1.1.2.1
              7 December 2014 at 3:07 pm

              thank you for your measured reply.That actually makes sense.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                7 December 2014 at 3:58 pm

                It certainly does, and are you saying you hadn’t figured that out for yourself?

                It’s worth noting, by the way, that the first successful climate model was described in 1896, and every single one of the predictions it made were “skillful”. Modern global circulation models merely seek to increase the “resolution” available – dividing the atmosphere into smaller and smaller “cells” as computer power increases.

      • les 10.2.2
        7 December 2014 at 10:35 am

        Les just stated 2 facts…you are the one making assumptions.Evidence of a ‘problem’ =?

        • One Anonymous Bloke 10.2.2.1
          7 December 2014 at 10:40 am

          What are the sources of the extra sea-ice, Les?

          • les 10.2.2.1.1
            7 December 2014 at 3:11 pm

            surely you jest!Are you really Stephen Hawking or did you teach him everything he knows?’ A wingnut of very little brain.’

            • One Anonymous Bloke 10.2.2.1.1.1
              7 December 2014 at 3:28 pm

              Ah, so you cited the Antarctic sea-ice figure without even the slightest inkling why it’s at record levels? Yes, I think your stunted intellect might explain why you did that.

              Next.

          • Naturesong 10.2.2.1.2
            7 December 2014 at 3:17 pm

            Increase in Antarctic sea ice.

            AND

            Current sea level rise is about 3 mm/year worldwide.
            NOAA states “this is a significantly larger rate than the sea-level rise averaged over the last several thousand years”, and the rate may be increasing.

            Points to, a LOT more water entering the oceans from somewhere.

Links to post