How fast can we transition off fossil fuels?

Written By: - Date published: 9:57 am, January 12th, 2020 - 148 comments
Categories: climate change - Tags: , , , ,

David Slack’s column on Stuff today looks at the resistance to taking climate action seriously, and the reasons why we should,

We have just two choices, they both take us into the unknown, and we have to pick one: give up fossil fuels and move to sustainability, or remain unsustainable and live with the consequences.

To help explain the wall of flames across their nation, the ABC has made a web page to lay out the future in exceptionally clear graphic form. 

They say, about the climate: “The childhood you remember no longer exists.” 

Here’s the executive summary: the hotter it gets, the worse things are. And it will not be good. It will be awful. Horrible. Deadly. 

From the ABC graphic,

The IPCC says that in the next 10 years the world must begin to significantly reduce CO2 emissions. If we continue to use fossil fuels the way we currently do, modelling from the IPCC shows we will be on track for a 4-degree increase in temperatures this century.

That would mean that by the time a child born today is 20, the 2018-19 summer we sweltered through would be considered a mild Australian summer.

Pete George then made the argument in response that we should be cautious in the process of giving up fossil fuels, because to do so quickly or radically would cause more problems than climate change.

We don’t have “just two choices”.

If we “give up fossil fuels” (and some go as far as saying or implying this should be immediate and total) the consequences would be enormous. Virtually no more flying. Virtually no more shipping. Drastically reduced private and public transport. Countries that rely a lot on on fossil fuels, like the US, China and Australia, would have extreme energy deficiencies, with no way of switching to electric transport to any degree.

The flow on effects of these changes alone would have a massive impact on our way of life – and would cost lives. We rely on fossil fuels for emergency services.

There would be massive impacts on food production and distribution.

Any sort of rapid change away from fossil fuels would cause far more problems than continuing on much as we are.

Slack has omitted the obvious choice – work towards alternative energy options as as quickly as we can – far more quickly than we are at present – but without putting civilisation on Earth at risk of catastrophic collapse.

Leaving aside that Slack doesn’t appear to be arguing that we should give up fossil fuels tomorrow (and in fact very few people are suggesting this), but rather that we should be taking more action, what’s really the issue here is how fast.

The irony of the incrementalist/slower position is that had we taken climate change seriously in the past we could have much more easily transitioned to renewable sources of power across society and been much less likely to have the deficiencies people worry about. It’s doubtful now that there is time for a slow transition that doesn’t disrupt people’s lives. It’s also doubtful that green BAU is possible because the timeframes are too short and because BAU transition takes too much of our carbon budget.

Regarding the basics (food, shelter, safety, healthcare, a decent standard of living), we’re approaching the tension point between the fear a fast transition will deprive us vs the fear that not acting fast enough will lead to climate change depriving us. Climate activists fear the latter more. Incrementalists fear the former more.

I can live without many things that we currently have and I’m not afraid of a decrease in lifestyle privileges. My grandparents born at the end of the 19th century lived good lives, and we will have far more technological advantage than they did.

Not so much social and community advantage but that’s the other great challenge here. When we give up fossil fuel tech we realise that we need social structures more. Relocalised economies, food/resource production and so on are dependent on strong community, and strong/healthy social connections make up a lot of the shortfall we might worry about. Think less socialising on our phones and more potlucks. Or less driving to the supermarket, more food from our neighbourhoods, more time to spend with the kids.

If that’s all a bit hippy for you, and we go back to the how fast a transition issue, what exactly is it that is stopping NZ from going fully renewable? Either we need more generation (wind, solar, hydro), or we need to use less power (and be more efficient in what we use, as well as make better use of passive tech).  We need both, and both is what allows us to transition faster and with less disruption. Yes, we have to give some things up, but this is not a hardship when we consider what is at stake. The sooner we get on with it the more we will be able to save.

148 comments on “How fast can we transition off fossil fuels? ”

  1. RedLogix 1

    Power down and living with less is what the 3 billion people still living in absolute poverty in the world are already doing. And another 3 billion who have already entered a modest middle class living will only strive for better.

    If we reasonably assume that the human population will peak at around 10 billion within this century, that is another 9 billion humans all legitimately aspiring to the same standard of life that the top 'golden 1 billion' already have. It takes no complex math to understand that no matter how much the developed world 'powers down' … it will be totally negated by even quite modest increases in the developing world. The numbers simply enforce this.

    Equally it's impossible for the developing world to grow and consume resources as the developed world already does. That's axiomatic.

    Therefore they have to leapfrog us. The existing developed world can be thought of as a pilot program, an R&D phase that has enabled us to build a large enough technological base to get to the next stage … a stage that takes us beyond exploiting nature.

    How fast can we get there; well I still like the model I read a few weeks back. Three stages; push harder for more efficiencies in the short term. They are the low hanging fruit and are worth taking. Continue to develop known and available alternative energy sources in the mid-term; in this solar and wind absolutely have their place. Billions of dollars of research is being funded right not; tech improvements are coming down the road at us way sooner than we think.

    But longer term … say 20 – 50 years out we need high quality, concentrated energy that does not damage the environment. The most immediate lever to pull in this respect are the new generation MSR machines I've been on about elsewhere. Beyond them I expect the deep puzzle of stable fusion designs will likely be solved. To fully decouple our industrial systems from exploiting natural energy sources we need vastly more energy than we currently project. As a wild guess, at least 10 times our current total energy from all existing sources.

  2. mikesh 2

    How does one get rid of ICE cars while the existing fleet is continually being turned over and renewed? If we simply ban their use as from some particular date people with a sizable investment in a vehicle would be rather upset at not being able to use something they had previously paid for. We would have to set a date at ,say, five years in the future to give people time to adjust. Alternatively we could ban the import of ICE vehicles immediately so that owners could continue to use their existing cars until the time came to send them off to be crushed. This would allow the existing fleet to gradually diminish.

    • RedLogix 2.1

      It will happen when EV's become the economically rational choice. As soon as any new technology becomes about 5 – 10 times cheaper/better than the existing alternative, it very rapidly replaces the old. (It’s what happened when ICE vehicles replaced horses in the decade from 1900 – 1910, an equally dramatic shift)

      My best guess now … 2025.

      • Paul Campbell 2.1.1

        IMHO they are now, the new (well second hand) Leaf arrives next week – most of our travel is around town, we don't need a long distance car

        • RedLogix 2.1.1.1

          A lot of households will use run a new EV for trips that match their shorter range capacity, and hang on to an older ICE for longer range trips, or as a backup car. Then over the next five years or so the ICE will be replaced either with a newer better EV … or more likely … people will transition from ownership to 'transport as a service' model.

    • Sabine 2.2

      Because mining for lithium is not using fossil fuels.

      we will never transition of fossil fuels because essentially we have become lazy and it is our god (insert your god of choice) right to drive humongous gas guzzling cars and boats and other assorted toys up and down the country for a bit of RnR to forget all that paying back of loans for the humongous gas guzzling cars and toys. Because really stupidity is us.

      https://www.salon.com/2019/06/17/lithium-mining-for-green-electric-cars-is-leaving-a-stain-on-the-planet/

      https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-batteries-environment-impact

      https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lithium-copper-mining-atacama-desert

      • RedLogix 2.2.1

        right to drive humongous gas guzzling cars and boats and other assorted toys up and down the country for a bit of RnR

        Certainly true for some fraction of the people at this point in time, but adoption of new ideas is never a simple black and white moment event, everyone out then everyone in. Instead there are five recognised stages that people move through over time.

        As for lithium mining, yes it has some nasty downsides. In order to extract it cost effectively at present we are consuming naturally concentrated sources as described in your links. However there is a great deal of lithium (and many other metals) dissolved in the oceans. Vast amounts of it, far more than we conceivably need. There is some research looking at lithium extraction going on now.

        The big constraint in getting metals out of the oceans is energy cost. That's one of the reasons we need to be developing high quality, highly concentrated energy sources with no impact on the environment.

        You are quite justified in your dismay at how oblivious many people are on all of this … but there are good reasons to be at least a little optimistic. More than anything else humans do adapt to change remarkably well.

        • Sabine 2.2.2.1

          the best solution is public transport. Free, frequent, clean, etc. etc.e

          And again – free is an oxymoron considering that we pay for it already, our council subsidize it, and by getting people into buses and off cars we would probably not need to constantly build roads that can't keep up with the usage.

          As for hemp, is it even legal to be grown in NZ? The plant has many uses and should be grown in large numbers.

          • weka 2.2.2.1.1

            Hemp is legal to grow in NZ, I follow Blair on twitter who is a Southland farmer doing this,

            https://www.hopefieldhemp.co.nz/

            I think you need a licence to grow, so it's not cheap, but more people are in the process of setting up.

          • katipo 2.2.2.1.2

            "the best solution is public transport."

            If you can manage it a better option is walking or biking.

            • Sabine 2.2.2.1.2.1

              true that, but then you might not want to walk 20 ks+ either way to get to your job or such.

              Most of our misery on he roads is self inflict by insisting that people buy a car, legalise it, maintain it, put gasoline in. And this will go in the thousands of dollar a year. Just to get to work. + anything from an hour to 4 hours a day stuck in traffic to then keep that same vehicle parked at cost.

              The answer to that is public transport. Free, frequent clean fast easy accessible public transport.

  3. Ad 3

    The greatest resistance to New Zealand transitioning faster is cities.

    Our cities have 100 years of built-in inertia. I'm not decrying the "Transition Towns" movement, but tbh it's a small-scale effort.

    Christchurch was one of the greatest opportunities New Zealand ever had to rebuild to a completely different way of thinking and living. The results are a massive shift in where people live and how, but it could have been so much more transformative.

    While Auckland is now doing a lot to shift itself, if you want to see a really oil-addicted major city on the rise, check out Tauranga. OMG what a frickin' mess getting worse.

    And for a smaller city in raw conflict between its wealth and its ideals, check out Queenstown and the debate over whether to devolve airport functions across to Wanaka. That's a climate contest of the first order.

    These are hard contests, smacking up against locals and local institutions, with billions and billions of public money at stake.

    Coming up on February 28th:

    Government announces where it will spend another $28 billion in infrastructure.

    • weka 3.1

      Christchurch was painful to the people with sustainable and regen design in mind. I followed early on but had to stop in the end because it was too frustrating watching all those opportunities slip away. Lots of that was on National, but it's hard to know if under a Labour govt the sustainable stuff would have gotten much further.

      yes, conflicts between values. The sheer amount of power vested in people who see development and making money as the overriding need is mind boggling. This is a choice for the middle classes because they have the most influence over institutional power. Time to pick a side and soon.

      • Ad 3.1.1

        Nothing's going to change without people making money.

        Nothing on any real scale at least.

        That's mostly because everyone wants a good-paying and rewarding job.

        That upcoming $28 billion of infrastructure is enough to catch up on a host of social problems and then starting into some future ones. It's a list to watch for.

        • weka 3.1.1.1

          there's a difference between making a good living so that one can support one's life and family, and making money as a prime objective. Too many people in positions of power hold the latter above the former and this is what I was referring to. It's tied into development as a prime objective, rather than organising society for people and environment as a prime objective and designing development from that.

          Hence the Wanaka airport situation. QLD doesn't need another international airport, it wants one so that it can develop more. This is not the only choice available, but it's starkly the one that Slack and many of us point to. Do we want to limit the climate disaster? Or do we want to carry on BAU because we can make some money and grow some big projects over the next decade? There's nothing even remotely sustainable about the airport proposal, and it's a failure of imagination that it's even on the table (plus a massive amount of climate denial).

          Labour's priorities for funding should be infrastructure that is designed around sustainability and preparing for climate events.

          • Ad 3.1.1.1.1

            I'll have to do a specific post on the Queenstown-Wanaka situation because boiling it down to "they just want to make money" is as useful as David Slack doing another false binary about "just two choices".

            Slack is setting himself to compare New Zealand's policy responses to climate change with those of Australia's, even before the ash is cooled and the dead are buried.

            That is really fucking stupid.

            The Australian Prime Minister has already signaled that there will be an inquiry about their recent fires, and it's going to look into a broad range of factors including climate change.

            Slack and any other commentator will get the same response from Australians as we got from trying to tell them what to do with illegal immigrant and refugees arriving by boat.

            There's very little to compare between the two countries' risk profiles

            – New Zealand burnt 90% of its own forest far faster and earlier than the Australians have;

            – we use far less public transport than the Australians do;

            – we're a weaker, poorer, and less organized society compared to the financial capacity and governance systems of Australia;

            – we have a population not even the size of Sydney and still find it really hard to change anything of note;

            – we're arguably more beholden to a smaller and more concentrated set of interest groups and oligopolies and monopolies than Australia's Federal or State governments are

            – some of the policy and executive responses Australia has already developed to climate change – such as the Murray-Darling Authority – are more advanced and have more power than anything we've come up with

            – our own policy responses are so fresh we've still got a good year or two to go before we even get the regulations going

            Maybe David Slack should just STFU for a while and let the embers die down first.

            • weka 3.1.1.1.1.1

              Slack's post isn't telling Australians what to do. It's using Australia's situation to illustrate why we need to act now. We being NZers (his audience) or humans generally.

              Likewise, I didn't frame the Wanaka airport as boiling it down to "they just want to make money", and I have to wonder if the issue here is you're not reading what I wrote, or you're just not interested in responding to what I was communicating.

              I'll say it again in case anyone is interested. We need to change fast. Not overnight, but faster than BAU can tolerate. If you want to argue against that, feel free, but it will have to be a well constructed argument to pass my 'no denial under my posts' boundary. The IPCC is very clear on the timeframe.

              One of the big blocks to that change is having people in positions of power centred in making excess profit and developing for the sake of it/unsustainable development. Those two things are linked. If the starting point is to limit the damage that climate change will do, then the first move is to not promote BAU approaches but instead shift to systems thinking and sustainable design. Very few mainstream businesses and organisations are doing this, although more and more are trying to lay sustainability over the top of their existing structures (which is necessary but not sufficient).

              Hence NZ hasn't shifted to all renewables for its power generation. We think we need that extra 20 – 30% because we think that things have to keep growing and be developed, and some people lack the imagination to figure out how to help people making a living in a post-carbon world. But mostly because we're still not designing sustainably. As Robert says below, not everyone has that skill, but there are plenty of people who know how to do this.

              It did occur to me that when you said,

              Nothing's going to change without people making money.

              Nothing on any real scale at least.

              That's mostly because everyone wants a good-paying and rewarding job.

              you were talking about the business owning class. I'll reiterate. If we have ten years, and a capped carbon budget, the only way to meet those deadlines and constraints is if we start with the goal being climate mitigation. Not climate mitigation as secondary to the economy, but as the thing that the economy serves and is based on. The best work I have seen done on this is from the systems thinking/sustainability crowd.

              I'm not seeing much coming out of the mainstream that inspires me. So instead of a tree planting project that transforms across all of society (multiple kinds of forests and forestry, job creation, relocalising economy, better job satisfaction, integrated regenag, local orchards, local native reserves and so on and son), we have it being run by Jones, BAU economics, plants lots of pine trees and put the natives over there. It's equivalent of what happened in Chch and it's exactly what happens when you start with profit and development as the goal.

              • weka

                it’s on the business owning class to change practice and re-organise around sustainable design. There are plenty of people offering to help businesses do this, so I can’t see a good rationale here for arguing against this.

                • Graeme

                  It's one thing for a business to produce a sustainably designed product, it's another to get consumers to buy it over another product that has had the sustainability designed out of it to reduce cost and sell at a lower price point. In our global society price is generally the winner, business is responding to that.

                  I get that it a chicken and egg thing, but if a business doesn't have customers there isn't a business.

                  • weka

                    Did you have something particular in mind?

                    Farming is a good example. We have regenag tech. Farmers are resistant philosophically and are being given bad advice by the sector who likewise doesn't understand either the need for change, the timeframes, and probably doesn't have philosophical underpinnings to get on with it.

                    If we start with people and environment, instead of 'how can I maximise profit from this export', then the processes become transformed and it's easier to see the way out.

                    Because of the economic bind many are in (esp large debt) I'm in favour of farmer subsidies to transition, but only if to actual sustainable farming, not the tinkering to preserve profit that's happening a lot. Am also in favour of transitioning incrementally where that has meaning in terms of climate mitigation and ecosystem protection.

                    • Graeme

                      I was thinking more about general retail / consumer trade. I'm at the gallery today and looking around what we do, NZ made, generally by hand / artisan and good durable quality, then comparing that with other retail businesses. We're probably in the middle of the market, but but are above most that walk in the door, sometimes by a factor of 10 or more. So there's about 20 stores around Queenstown selling mass market souvenir items at $10 price points, we've got $500 counter sales. That's where we need to be to have a business from the much smaller market and provide a business for our artists.

                      My other business at present is building fences on a deer farm around here that's expanding quite rapidly and dramatically (the gallery's my partner's thing really). There's huge awareness around caring for the land and farming the land to improve it. I'm astounded at what has been achieved by the manager to tackle weeds (mainly briar and buddleia ) by careful stock management. There's considerable monitoring of land and water and improvements mapped. It's quite competitive through farm focus groups as well. But venison is a niche market and the gains are in producing a better product rather than producing more.

                      Fontera's possible demise has brought the value over volume debate out in the open and there's interesting discussions going on in agriculture and tourism. Government is leading a bit, but it's coming from industry as well and value seems to be accepted more now. That's at least from where I'm seeing it

                  • Sacha

                    Regulating minimum standards is how to make sure all businesses change.

                    Our neoliberal govts since 1984 have been wary of doing their jobs that way. They need pressure from the public and champions to change now.

              • Robert Guyton

                "I'll say it again in case anyone is interested. We need to change fast. Not overnight, but faster than BAU can tolerate."

                Amen to that.

              • Tony Veitch (not etc.)

                yes

            • James Thrace 3.1.1.1.1.2

              Re public transport.

              It is inconceivable that we have so much duplication across NZ when it comes to transport providers.

              Instead of 17 different bus companies, this is one social service that needs to be a single service provider across all of NZ.

              Doing so will allow for economies of scale and for costs to be spread nationwide instead of each provider having to make it work in the respective cities.

              Would also mean fewer subsidies paid out by councils to a multitude of providers and likely allow for bus drivers to be paid what they should be – something in the order of $30 per hour.

      • pat 3.1.2

        painful is an apt description….and a life lesson in the deception of rhetoric. The following is the type of opportunity that was promoted and envisioned post quakes and what many had hoped would rise from the dust….instead we got BAU and increased suburbia which is only going to increase with the (population) growth agenda of both local and central government.



        • weka 3.1.2.1

          thanks, I'm a fan of Krumdieck's, will have a look at the vid. Do you know what happened with the project?

          • pat 3.1.2.1.1

            absolutely nothing…..as said all the initial vision promoted by the gov/council/developers of using the disaster as an opportunity to rebuild the city with the future in mind was little more than feel good rhetoric that went out the window as soon as people like SK showed them how.

    • Graeme 3.2

      raw conflict between its wealth and its ideals

      Elegant summation of life in Central right now. Some of the conflict and nimbyism is delicious in it's ironies. You would have had an entertaining break over the hill this year.

      Many explicit examples of governments', local and national, inability to plan for growth on anything more than an annual timescale. So there's three competing 'town centres' in Frankton, all single level boxes surrounding a ground level car park, on 30m of fine sort gravel. David Henderson's concept for Five Mile was light years ahead of what we've ended up with.

      The airport issues are really just the tip of the iceberg, everything transport is at it's limits. Trucks, 100s a day, come down from Christchurch full and go back empty. Maybe a modern rail link through Mckenzie and into Central could solve a lot of current issues, freight and passenger. But that's big, bold infrastructure.

      • Ad 3.2.1

        Doing worry I'm not immune from such conflicts either.

        All those tourists coming in and pumping up my equity is just great.

        On the other hand it would be great not to have an international jet engine flypath over the house or those of my relatives.

        Queenstown and Wanaka – and increasingly Crowmwell – have wealth and mortgages and equity built on the success of that airport.

        And OMG Milford Sound resembles St Pancras station for the volume of people it pushes through.

        Tourism has been our transition industry from agriculture. And tourism is the most petroleum-reliant industry we have beyond cars and trucks themselves.

        Whatever transition we have in mind – well, Central Otago writes the conflict in capital letters for us.

        • Graeme 3.2.1.1

          Tourism operates on various time scales, and with different effects on values. There's the ones who come through for a few days and spend their money and use services.

          Then there's another layer who are here longer, they spend setting up a life and require an expansion of services to accomodate their increasing numbers. They may earn an income from, and contribute to the local economy, but it's still a cash / capital negative undertaking. If they get their timing right they might come out of it with with a capital gain. Scratch a negative attitude to the place and you'll often find a story like this.

          The challenge in Central is to transition the economy away from discretionary lifestyle residence. It's been a catch cry for the last 50 years, but nothing much has come along apart from building houses to house people to build more houses. Maybe eventually we'll reach some sort of critical mass where we create a self sustaining economy alongside tourism, but at present the cash burn of new arrivals is what keeps the place going.

          Tourism, as in re-creation tourism, may be highly carbon intensive at present, but this could be reduced easily with changes in transport mode and activities. Especially in New Zealand with our abundance of renewable energy options. The industry is essentially public transport in a discretionary/recreational form, we already have the infrastructure in airlines, rental cars and hotels, it's a matter of transitioning these to carbon neutral and more efficient modes. Just like Auckland's done with it's public transport.

          • Ad 3.2.1.1.1

            I agreed with all of that until you said "easily reduced".

            The $2 bus from the airport was a good move.

            They can do more.

            • Graeme 3.2.1.1.1.1

              Definitely we can do more.

              – High speed, electrified rail from Christchurch to Queenstown, for freight and passenger

              – Hybrid and electric rental fleets

              – Hybrid and electric bus fleets, urban and mainline

              – Bio-fuel and electric / hybrid for light aviation and possibly up to regional

              – Electric gondolas for mountain and commuter transport

              Of those five the only one that's not happening at present is rail from Christchurch. All the others are either contracted or have operators actively working on options.

              The $2 bus is going off, patronage is increasing all the time and a lot of full busses over New Year and seeing crowds at bus stops. Evidently expansion is being brought forward but constrained by staffing issues. Unfortunately not so much driven by carbon issues, but by capacity. Capacity on Frankton Road and parking in CBD can't be increased above current levels, so only option is demand reduction. Hence the maximum subsidy possible from NZTA, ORC and QLDC, evidently it's $2 because there's no provision to be free.

              Unfortunately catchment is pretty much restricted to the served routes, park and ride options are effectively nil, there's less public parking in Frankton than in CBD. When Gapes filled in Hendo's Hole the park and ride that was part of Hendo's Five Mile went west.

              • Paul Campbell

                I think that rail from Chch to Queenstown is non-starter – are you going to ruin the Kawarau Gorge? (like we ruined the Cromwell Gorge?) how will you get it over the Lindis? (or do you plan on shutting down the rail-trail so you can the old rail line back into Cromwell working again (oh wait we flooded the Cromwell Gorge where it used to go)

                • Graeme

                  It's very serious tunnelling, but methods have moved on a bit since 1920's when we last built railways here. But like I said, it's serious infrastructure. But so is a new regional airport, which would need huge roading upgrades as well because it would be a long way from populations centres.

                  I’m think about ways to avoid building another airport in Central and getting a couple of hundred trucks a day off the Lindis, which is where we will be if there isn’t a change in how Central operates.

                  There's also serious people movements in and out of Central Otago with tourism, and bringing in everything to support that. At present everything comes by road from the north, apart from some of the people who come by air. Add in 20% growth in population p/a, plus everything to support that as well, and the current road and air infrastructure is at it's limit.

              • Rocco Siffredi

                "– High speed, electrified rail from Christchurch to Queenstown, for freight and passenger"

                Construction costs of high speed rail runs at about $50m/km. A line from Christchurch to Queenstown would be in the order of $25 billion.

                • Graeme

                  Yeah, I've been a bit in-precise with my language there. Really meaning high speed within our 3'6" gauge. So would probably end up around 10-15 billion to give a service up to 180 – 200 kmh for passenger and freight.

                  I can't see New Zealand ever having the population and economic density to have the full quid 400 kmh rail.

                  Queenstown airport has well and truly out grown it's current site and needs to move, or shed about half it's load to kick the can down the road for another 10 years. Estimates for a new airport start around 2 billion for the airport and then there's major road or rail infrastructure to tie that in with existing communities and tourism assets that could be 100km away. Very quickly numbers get very large.

                  Then you've got the freight. At present that all comes over the Lindis by truck, hundreds of them a day coming into Central. Driving right past the existing infrastructure that could power their replacement in a sustainable manner.

  4. Sacha 4

    Pete George then made the argument in response that we should be cautious

    Well knock me down with a feather.

    • RedLogix 4.1

      Celebrate our cautious cousins … for we need them to save us from our over-reaching follies. smiley

      • Sacha 4.1.1

        Wouldn't want to put civilisation on Earth at risk of catastrophic collapse by acting on climate change. Unseemly.

      • AB 4.1.2

        It might be necessary to distinguish good-faith caution (concern for self and others) from bad-faith caution (concern for self alone). And while this is obviously a binary over-simplification, and while I also wouldn't presume to put Pete in either camp, it is important to recognise that not all caution is equal.

    • Robert Guyton 4.2

      Cautious Pete is a threat to our future.

      You wouldn't ask digger-driver to smith you a wedding ring; the ability to understand the unfolding ecological crisis does not reside equally amongst all humans; some of us are woefully ignorant of the world around us and shouldn't be offered the chance to hamper necessary action. The Guardian newspaper refuses to give column space to climate science deniers, as does StuffNZ – good call, such head-in-the-sanders imperil us all. Cautious Pete and his ilk do the same, while exuding an "suit of arrogance and set-f-confidence" that can't be dented, either by reason or mockery smiley Proclamations of caution, balance and restraint from the likes of Cautious Pete serve one good purpose in provoking discussion amongst those who aren't glued to BAU by caution.

      • RedLogix 4.2.1

        The Cautious Pete's of this world are innately risk averse. And there is an important value in their constraint; most new ideas are not good ones. Us visionary types would reduce the world to fucking chaos by morning tea if left in charge.

        But when we can demonstrate to them something that works … they will be the ones on get on board to build it, refine it and drive it to it's full potential. Especially if they can make some decent coin at it 🙂

      • weka 4.2.2

        I agree about the skill base, but you know I was actually wondering if Pete was coming around. It was an odd framing he used, but I think he was in fact agreeing with Slack. We should do something. If his resistance is to extreme powerdown rather than timely action, this is an improvement 😉

        • Sacha 4.2.2.1

          Bushfire haze in Dunedin may have caused some reflection..

        • Pete George 4.2.2.2

          You seem to be making incorrect assumptions. I've been arguing for taking action on climate change for the last decade.

          I'm arguing here for much more action than the current Government is taking. Thar's not new.

          I think there would be a lot wider support for more urgent actions if we had leadership with far clearer plans on this from the top. Without that the extremes can make more noise in a vacuum.

          • weka 4.2.2.2.1

            did you party vote Green at the last election Pete?

            • Pete George 4.2.2.2.1.1

              Are you checking to see whether I qualify for something?

              This is a symptom of a major problem afflicting the left – if someone is deemed to not qualify to have an opinion on an issue, or don't meet some sort of 'in the club' criteria, they're dissed or dismissed.

              The only way of getting majority support for what you want to achieve in a democracy is to find allies, not find reasons to divide and drive support away

              • weka

                No, I was going to have a conversation with you about the government's action on CC. You've mentioned in the past that you vote across the spectrum and in this conversation it seemed relevant to know if you voted Green last time.

          • Robert Guyton 4.2.2.2.2

            "I've been arguing for taking CAUTIOUS action on climate change for the last decade. "

            Fify

            • Pete George 4.2.2.2.2.1

              That's a stupid "quote" Robert.

              I'm suggesting less "caution" than the current Government of which the Green Party is a part of. At least James Shaw understands democratic processes – he has achieved quite a bit considering the party numbers. But the Greens would get more support if some of their supporters didn't drive imagined heathens away.

              • pat

                less caution than the current government?….you mean go backwards….a la ScoMo?

              • I'm suggesting less "caution" than the current Government of which the Green Party is a part of.

                Hence weka's question as to whether you party-voted Green at the last election: because there is only one party advocating less "caution" than the current coalition, and that's the Green Party. If you didn't vote for them, how credible is your claim that you support a less cautious approach than the coalition?

  5. Sabine 5

    well we could demand free public transport (free being paid for by taxes ) now

    or, offer a tax rebate for all that use free public transport at the end of the year.

    we could offer a tax rebate for those that start cycling rather then commuting

    we could limit parking spaces for cars to one per family and if you want more then that than your family needs to buy a private car park and show the recipts for that (done in Utrecht Holland)

    we could also not build bedsites for poor people out in the sticks on either side of a motorway without shops, schools, etc and expect them to commute for hours on end to go to work, bring the kids to school and buy some groceries. But again, this is for poor people so i guess its ok. The well paid suits will feel good cycling to work, after all they live close enough 🙂

    we could raise the price of gasoline to include the cost of wars, dead people all over the oil producing countries of this planet, the pollution caused by oilspills, the costs of the destruction of wilderness and wildlife in order to build pipelines etc etc etc

    If we do enough of that some people might not have an issue with using public transport, and besides our Grandparents could, why should we not be able to.

    In saying that, non of this will ever come about simply because our suits are more interested in getting re-elected (all sides and all colors of the suits) and thus we are not going to do anything that would impact on that re-election success.
    And touching gasoline driven toys in NZ will not get you re-elected no matter how big the fire in the living room.

    • weka 5.1

      Re your last paragraph, if you believe that nothing will be done, are you saying people should not try to get things done?

      • Sabine 5.1.1

        Have you read my list first? its not the first time in the last few years that i have been on this board that i have raised it. Can you point to them and maybe just maybe address them on their merits. And not just the very last one?

        I would also like to point out that i have always used public transport, cycled twenty years ago when everyone was like WTF would you be doing that (cycling to commute), and never owned a car in NZ. And thus i can actually speak for the awesome services that are public transport option in NZ.

        And i can also point to my personal experience of rather walking 7 km one way to work then trying to get a bus because there are very few busses in Auckland that would come on time during rush hour, and there are even less that would arrive on time.

        I would also like to point to the debacle that was the cutting down the nice bus system that Wellington had to replace it with a very dysfunctional system they have now.

        We do nothing much when it comes to make public transport THE attractive alternative to the car.

        At the very least we could offer tax write offs to the working stiffs, school children and students that use public transport to get more people to use it. And i have raised that point many many times. And yet here we are, again discussing how to get of fossil fuels. Because at the end of the day, we do nothing.

        And again Weka, this is my own personal opinion based on my own personal experiences. Everyone else has their own opinion.

        • weka 5.1.1.1

          yes I did read the list first. It's a list that lots of us have, the stuff that could/should be done. But then you ended it by saying that it won't be done because x, y, z. So I'm curious, in a political space, how that works. What's the point of all the good ideas if you believe they won't be done?

          To put it another way, the left is full of people who have ideas about what we need. This is important. What we have less of is people willing to talk about how those things can be achieved in real terms. Not "the government can build more PT", but how we can get the government to do that. If your position is that this is not possible, then I don't understand what you are suggesting.

          • Sabine 5.1.1.1.1

            The point is that you asked what could be done.

            I listed a few things i believe COULD be done. Quickly. Easily even. Not all of them at once but one by one by these could be implemented, starting with the tax write of for the costs of public transport. This would also be one the points that would put money back in into families, and reduce the cost of going to and from work/studies/school.

            And i believe that if we make public transport the cheaper alternative to private transport people will start using it. And i believe this because i saw it happening in Germany, Holland, Sweden, Norway, France etc etc etc. These were the things that the governments did in these countries starting in the late eighties and now you are on your third generation of people that own bikes and driver lisences but no cars. Cars are something to be rented when the need arises, or as some communities in Germany have started the Council owns 'community cars' that can be rented directly from the council. Again this reduced the need for more and more carparks, more roads, reduced local pollution, allowed for the replanting of what used to be huge carparks etc.

            But the fact that we are again discussing these points leads me to believe that nothing will happen …again.

            I don't even frame this in terms of left or right, but in terms of money. It costs a lot of money to buy, leglaise and maintain a car. And then it costs more to get on a bus in the morning – if it arrives on time. Think on that. Why would anyone, on the right, the left or non affiliated pay more to be late, or worse even not get the job because they are on public transport (and yes, that happens).

            So to finish, the government, the current and any other that follows could surprise me by doing something that is more then the signing of a paper that needs to be ratified and codified adn and and and and until it is obsolete like this one here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change or this one here https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-agreement/the-paris-agreement . just to name a few.

            To be honest Weka, i fear that in a years time you will write another post to this end. And i fear that i will list the same points again, and we will have this exact discussion again. And i fear that next years 'bush fire season' in Oz will be worse then this years. And i fear that we still don't want to change, as essentially we don't want to give up our privileges. But we need to. We so desperately need to look at our privileges and we need ask if they are worth having and keeping.

            • Drowsy M. Kram 5.1.1.1.1.1

              Sabine, your last point, about privileges:

              "We so desperately need to look at our privileges and we need ask if they are worth having and keeping."

              echoes Weka's observation (as part of ‘powering down’):

              "I can live without many things that we currently have and I’m not afraid of a decrease in lifestyle privileges."

              Agree with you both – to conserve the most essential elements of a NZ lifestyle, some and preferably most of us need to 'dial it back' while there are still enough of those elements left to stage a comeback.

              Others (and I'm not belittling them) can build skyscrapers, or visit Mars – I prefer NZ, as it is and as it was.

            • weka 5.1.1.1.1.2

              Where did I ask what could be done?

              I fear those things too, although I am less pessimistic than you. In the time I have been writing on TS about climate change (3.5 years), the conversation has changed (here, nationally, globally). I mostly now look at how change happens, and I'm heartened by XR, SS4C, MSM refusing to publish deniers and instead being proactive around climate science and action, we changed the government, the GP are in government for the first time, the IPCC has finally come out and said the crisis is here, now, and urgent and that we have to act fast. That's a large amount of social change in a short time.

              It's not enough obviously, but it does tell us that things are changing, and it is something we can build on.

              I'm also heartened by the increasing numbers of people that are gardening, making personal changes, wanting to do the right things in their own lives. This too can be built on.

              So I share your frustrations at what is not being done. The main point of me writing is to provoke discussion about change, what is working, and how to get there.

              And i fear that we still don't want to change, as essentially we don't want to give up our privileges. But we need to. We so desperately need to look at our privileges and we need ask if they are worth having and keeping.

              This. It's really what the post is about and I am working up to writing more about it being ok to give things up, because its necessary but also because it will potentially make all our lives better. Three years ago this was an almost impossible conversation to have because people were very resistant to the idea that personal change and sacrifice are necessary. I think we are just about at the point where being willing to sacrifice some things will go mainstream.

              Change can happen fast given the right conditions and I think there is a real possibility that the thinking and acting you and many of us are doing will come into its own. Not in a Pollyanna, everything works out ok way, but in a yes, it wasn't all for naught, we did manage to avert the worst of the disaster way.

              • lprent

                I fear those things too, although I am less pessimistic than you. In the time I have been writing on TS about climate change (3.5 years), the conversation has changed (here, nationally, globally).

                I've been arguing for starting to deal with climate change from about the mid-90s. Essentially there was sufficient cautionary evidence to back what was a theory when I finished a BSc in earth sciences in 1981.

                I started seriously arguing for faster adaption to combat climate change in the early 2000s. When I started commenting on this site in 2008, I seemed to spend half of my time on this site from 2008 onwards arguing with ignorant deniers who seemed to spend their time parroting lines that came directly from the fossil fuel industry.

                There has been a political and societal change in the last few years. But I think that it is going to be too little and too late to preserve any semblance of the kind of world we grew up with. We're going to have a lot of food production go out of usage and some significiant human dieback.

                I think that has only made a 6C average world temperature in 2100 less likely. The consequences of that on agriculture would have been absolutely horrendous. We may be moving towards targeting 4C. But I think that we're well past any hope of getting to holding it to 2C.

                There are simply too many people in the world (as Redlogix pointed out above) who are going to want to increase their standard of living over the coming decades. Effectively the richer 10% are having to develop the technologies to allow them to do that without dooming us all. And then that 10% are going to have to kill of their dependence on burning fossil fuels along with the accumulation of appropriate infrastructure that isn’t going to cope with the changes to come.

                The load of CO2 and heat that has already been deposited in the oceans at the poles, especially in the last 3 decades will be changing the climate for centuries as it resurfaces in the tropics. We're going to be living with the extreme weather from this profligate era for thousands of years.

                But even that change makes the difference between losing much of the human habitable areas of the planet to repeated extreme weather events, like those that have been unfolding in Australia, or just having to expend far more with the costs of extensive and expensive adaption as sealevels rise 75 metres as the ice caps slowly melt over the coming centuries

            • Sacha 5.1.1.1.1.3

              …to get on a bus in the morning – if it arrives on time. Think on that. Why would anyone, on the right, the left or non affiliated pay more to be late, or worse even not get the job because they are on public transport…

              Yes, people avoid public transit services if they are not reliable or frequent enough. Giving people tax reductions so the government has less income makes that problem harder to address, not easier.

              • Sabine

                – giving worker drones the same tax deductions offered to self employed, sole traders, businesses would be fair. Currently your waged employees are he only ones paying for their work transport unless they have a work vehicle then its us tax payers paying for it as the business will write the business car/gasoline/upkeep off as a business expense.

                All other parts of our business world gets to write them off as a cost of business. And getting a several hundred dollar tax refund at the end of the year is nice, believe me, i wrote of my bus/train costs travelling 120 km a day to and from work. I had a monthly pass that was also valid on weekends and for the Intercity. 🙂 It would be good sense, and could easily be implemented. After all we are able to give tax write offs to people like Gareth Morgan and the likes.

                – our public transport is bad because there is no will to fix it. Be it underpaid bus drivers, be it broken busses, be it lack of buslines to assure timely arrival, and the very high and prohibitive costs of the service. And there is no will to fix it because 'only the poor beings without cars' use it – after all that is it, use it or walk. This mindset needs to change. Our idea of public transport should be clean, accessible, fast, reliable, accurate and nigh on 24 hours services (depending on location and what service). And if we only invest when more people use it, then right now we need to do something for people to use the services as it is now. And that would be by making it cheap.

                We need to start somewhere.

                • Sacha

                  if we only invest when more people use it

                  Or we could change that. By investing now in more service. Not in frustrating more people by making crap services more crowded.

                  We need to start somewhere.

                  Yes, yes we do.

                  • Sabine

                    you do realise that your investment now! does not take away from providing free public transport to all. You do that?

                    Or is the 'free' that you have an issue with? Never mind.

                    • Sacha

                      If you make it free before you have made more of it, what do you think happens? We have had this discussion here before.

    • Sacha 5.2

      Provide more public transit services first – more frequent, more reliable, more places – without funding arrangements that expect them to pay their way from day one. More buses, more trains. Also build more infrastructure for active modes like cycling and scootering and walking. Separated bike/scootering lanes in all major cities.

      Only after that does it make sense to spend money/forgo income by doing the things you suggest.

      The current govt could do it immediately in this year's Budget. If Winston lets them.

      • Sabine 5.2.1

        Provide more public transport first. Lol

        this is what has been said for many many years. However, the reason we don't do so is that we have priced our public transport at such a cost that it is prohibitive and thus our excuse to not providing more public transport is that not enough use it. Catch 22 if ever there was one.

        So now, how about we change the course, and provide free transport and then have a reason to argue for more because we are at full capacity.

        Because we really need to stop that vicious cycle first.

        Also i find it interesting that you did not acknowledge point two, namely ' allow for a tax rebate at the end of the year to offset the cost of public transport' which could already in the immediate incentivise some to use a bus/train/tram rather then their own car.

        And all the other points that i raised that all go to the same point. Raise the cost of private transport to what it should be if we were to factor in all the costs. Especially if we were to include the money set aside for military and military hardway to protect 'our interests' in the middle east and other countries that have the raw materials that we need so badly to keep up our wasteful lifestyles. All of that would get more and more people from the car to public transport.

        But seriously, we can also do nothing. Which is what we are doing now. And price that nothing at a cost that makes the car the attractive alternative.

        As for the current government, they could do that and force Winston to stand there and argue for doing nothing, and i would like to point out that Winston is the only one to have ever argued for free public transport – albeit only for one group of people. Just sayin, that maybe Winston is not always the boogey man to trot out in order to excuse the inaction of the coalition.

        • Sacha 5.2.1.1

          not enough use it

          Where are you getting that idea from?

          • Sabine 5.2.1.1.1

            from having heard it over and over again.

            like, we can't have well build roads becasue we are a small country and don't have the money so we build really crappy cheap roads that need to be fixed in six month.

            same thing.

  6. mauī 6

    The incrementalists should be sent to fight climate change.

    • Sacha 6.1

      True. Scorch the beige out of em.

    • Any serious climate plans talk of transition, which means incremental changes.

      We're all incrementalists. It's a matter of degree.

      Unless you have some way of defining a non-incrementalist other than someone who says rather than does.

  7. Drowsy M. Kram 7

    We’re in a transition from talking over the horizon about climate models telling us about a hypothetical future, to actually experiencing changes that are consistent with some of those projections.” [from this link in Weka's post]
    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-06/how-climate-change-has-impacted-your-life/11766018

    This is a graphic summary of CO2-forced global warming projections. If humankind stabilises its annual CO2 emissions from energy and industry at around 40 Gt, then there's a roughly 50% chance that by 2100 global warming will be <3 'C above pre-industrial temperatures. Even in this optimistic scenario, the globe will continue to warm rapidly – human adaptability will be tested.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#/media/File:Global_CO2_emissions_and_probabilistic_temperature_outcomes_of_Paris.png

  8. pat 8

    "The last time levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide were this high came during the Pliocene Epoch, which extended from about 5.3 million to 2.6 million years ago. During that period, average sea levels were about 50 feet higher than they are today and forests grew as far north as the Arctic, said Rob Jackson, a professor of earth system science at Stanford University. “Earth was a very different place,” he said. “You would hardly recognize the land surface, and my gosh, we don’t want to go there.”

    https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/carbon-dioxide-hits-level-not-seen-3-million-years-here-ncna1005231

    Thats 415 ppm NOW…..and we are adding to it daily, so unless we develop a mass miracle to extract more CO2 from the atmosphere than is being added we have locked in the changes….and the more we add the worse the environmental change and the more we have to somehow extract.

    Time to stop digging

  9. Climaction 9

    So much faster once this government stops fellating the rail industry and promoting roads.

    roads for EBuses to provide more flexible transport options from a to b that aren’t only a to b

  10. adam 10

    Liked the ABC link weka. As most of the people who write here will be dead before the really awful heating happens – gotta wonder why people are not willing to give up this comfortable life?

    I mean scratch the surface and most people are miserable. The comforts and ease of our current lives is not making people any more happier. I would have thought that the ability to embrace the world in a whole new way would have had a certain amount of appeal. But people are just as happy or willing to live their miserable lives.

    Having no car, and living as frugal as possible has its own joys. I eat healthier bread, which I make myself. I cook from scratch most meals (which my wife loves). A simple change recently is having a front loading washing machine – the water consumption had seen a significant drop. Stipping back to essentials is not hard, just takes a bit of effort and time.

    My guess is if kiwis were paid what they were worth, then more people would make the effort.

    • RedLogix 10.1

      The comforts and ease of our current lives is not making people any more happier.

      Absolutely correct. All the research on this shows that past a certain income/wealth threshold, human happiness is only weakly correlated with more. The problem is that for most of our evolution, lived out in lives of relative scarcity, more almost always equaled better. Now that link no longer holds so true, at least for the top 1 billion of us, but our instincts and social status seeking behaviours don't know this; it becomes a trap.

      The good news is that, as you have found, that humans can be educated out of this. All the major historic religions have teachings to this end. Poverty is no virtue, nor is wealth in of itself … what matters is whether it earned honestly and spent wisely.

  11. Leaving aside that Slack doesn’t appear to be arguing that we should give up fossil fuels tomorrow (and in fact very few people are suggesting this)…

    Slack said "give up fossil fuels" – what do you think he is arguing?

    Forest & Bird have a page End Fossil Fuels

    The oil, coal and gas deposits lying under New Zealand’s land and sea need to stay in the ground if we are to avoid a climate catastrophe. The world can’t afford to burn the fossil fuels that we’ve already found, so there’s no point looking for more.

    What do you think they mean by that?

    It looks like we're a long way from ditching fossil fuels.

    The Government considered and rejected banning the import of fossil fuel vehicles from 2035 onward, new documents show, despite the Ministry of Transport supporting the move.

    The Ministry of Transport found that banning the import of fossil fuel vehicles by 2035 would have a net $2.26 billion benefit, but the Government decided against it. Instead, we have the feebate scheme.

    Now, environmental activists say the Government should have gone ahead with the move…

    https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2019/08/23/768511/government-considered-banning-fossil-fuel-vehicles

    "Give up fossil fuels" looks a long way off, if it ever happens this century.

    Unless there's a major change in technology we may be still using fossil fuels in 2050 (and could still achieve net zero emissions). Using fossil fuels drilled from Aotearoa and surrounding seas may be better for the planet than importing less clean fuels from elsewhere.

    • Sacha 11.1

      When someone says 'give up fossil fuels' why would you assume that means immediately – unless you were applying the worst intent to the conversation? Have some faith. You would like David in person.

      'The government' includes Winston First. Resistance to rapid action will be outvoted by younger-at-heart movements within years, not decades.

      However I do agree with @lprent at 6.12am

      There has been a political and societal change in the last few years. But I think that it is going to be too little and too late to preserve any semblance of the kind of world we grew up with.

      • mauī 11.1.1

        "When someone says 'give up fossil fuels' why would you assume that means immediately…"

        I think when it comes down to it, Pete is really not an incrementalist wink

    • Robert Guyton 11.2

      "Slack said "give up fossil fuels" – what do you think he is arguing?"

      Yes, well Pete, you've (finally) nailed the problem (of your own making). You've made an assumption about one sentence from David Slack and despite some of us other commenters pointing at your too-narrow interpretation right from the start, you've been unable to self-realise/self-correct and here you are, a day later still pushing it uphill.

    • weka 11.3

      ok Pete, so your argument here is that we don't need to give up fossil fuels. Good to know. Wish you'd been upfront about this at the start, might have saved us all some time and energy.

      btw, that belies your statement "I've been arguing for taking action on climate change for the last decade." The science says we have limited time and a limited carbon budget. Given we're not meeting even the conservative goals of international climate agreements, we have less leeway not more.

      • Incognito 11.3.1

        FWIW, I believe that quite a few (some?) here seem to be misinterpreting Pete. Much of what he says is extrapolated and much of what he doesn’t specifically state is filled in with assumption. Either way, are they really listening to what he’s conveying?

        Pete represents a thinking and attitude(s) that is fairly (??) common among and thus representative of a large (?) part of the population IMHO. And IMHO, again, we could (should?) use him as a ‘Guinea pig’ to see how best we get more (any) traction with that large (?) segment of the population on how to counter CC most effectively and expediently.

        I’m not necessarily taking Pete’s side but I’m trying to see and understand his point(s). I also think that Pete does not disagree with the ‘what’ but might not quite (!) see the ‘how’ and ‘when’ in the same way as others here would like (or ‘demand’).

        • weka 11.3.1.1

          He equivocates enough that it doesn't surprise if people miss his intended meaning.

          Nice idea about using Pete as a guinea pig. Not sure he will be up for it but let's see.

          Re him being representative of a (large) part of the population, the difference is he's been immersed in progressive political spaces for years so should have a better grasp of the issues by now.

          • Incognito 11.3.1.1.1

            Ok, the way I see it is that things need to change and I was going to add “obviously”. The (institutional) power in our democratic political system is with the government, i.e. the Government needs to persuade (not necessarily convince) people that some policies and policy changes are acceptable and necessary even. However, if a large proportion of the electorate remains unpersuaded then no Government (or coalition party, rather) will be elected to implement those changes. Typical Catch-22.

            In other words, IMHO it boils down on how you persuade others. Do you tell them their views are wrong and yours are right, for example? Do you come down hard on them with Doom’s Day scenarios even if the best evidence is that they are likely to be correct?

            The best way to persuade an opponent is to read his mind and in the absence of that, to listen very carefully on what they say and not say and how they frame it.

            CC is (definitely) not a problem of only the Left but the discussions about the problems of the Left touch on the same core issue, which is persuasion, IMO.

            As long as Pete comments here on TS, he can be engaged and interacted with. To study a Guinea pig in its natural habitat, so to speak 😉

            I’d like to think he’s up for it 😉

            • Sacha 11.3.1.1.1.1

              I am mindful that there are way more people reading this than commenting. They deserve to see either a reasoned argument or a prompt dismissal as rubbish if it's the umpteenth time or not worth arguing with.

              Beige remains a small but influential colour on our political spectrum and a favourite of media.

              • RedLogix

                The 'beige' thing may have been a little funny the first few hundred times …cool

                • Sacha

                  Open to other shorthand, but 'grey' already has other symbolism. Anyone who has noticed housepaint trends over recent decades has an idea what it means.

              • Incognito

                Indeed, but these are not (a) binaries.

                Ask people to clarify instead of equivocate. This is not the same as asking them to declare or commit to a certain position (yet) as in ‘come off the fence’.

                Dismissing something as “rubbish” is effectively terminating the conversation for “the umpteenth time”.

              • Robert Guyton

                "We're going to hit that wall: slam on the brakes!!!"

                "Just gently apply the brakes. We don't want to wake the children sleeping in the back seat!!"

                WHAM!!!

                (It's a game of Guess the Players)

      • Pete George 11.3.2

        "ok Pete, so your argument here is that we don't need to give up fossil fuels."

        No it isn't.

        I said we are unlikely to give up fossil fuels very quickly. Eventually we (future generations) will have to give them up mostly if not completely. We will get there incrementally.

        You have argued for incremental change yourself in suggesting that no one (I presume including yourself) suggests we give them up immediately.

        • Robert Guyton 11.3.2.1

          'cept David Slack ('parently).

        • weka 11.3.2.2

          so your argument here is that we don't need to give up fossil fuels urgently with regard for the IPCC's 10 year time frame, or even by 2050?

          "You have argued for incremental change yourself in suggesting that no one (I presume including yourself) suggests we give them up immediately."

          Depends on what you mean by immediately. What I meant is we don't need to give them up this year and crash the global economy. There's a long way between that and saying it will happen next century and there's no rush. We do need to start giving them up right now. As in literally tomorrow, and the next day and the next day. It's a process, which is why we have some years to do this in. Not as long as you seem to think though.

          In the context of this post 'incremental' refers to political positioning. eg we can drop GHG emissions so long as the economy take priority and we don't cause too much upset to people's lives. This despite the fact that that approach may well cause mass deaths of humans and other forms of life.

    • RedLogix 11.4

      Unless there's a major change in technology we may be still using fossil fuels in 2050 (and could still achieve net zero emissions).

      I'm assuming in good faith that if by some entirely hypothetical miracle the world could stop using fossil fuels tomorrow, and not collapse into chaos, you would support that. There is after all no innate virtue in dead dinosaur juice.

      And I'm assuming that by 2050 (just 30 years into the future, hell I may well be still alive) the ICE engine for land transport use will be a historical curiosity, curated in museums and a few licensed collectors … like we do Clydesdale horses.

      The question … that weka posed in the OP … and effectively you are restating is 'how fast can we make the transition?' In that I suspect the govt is being way too conservative; I believe the tipping point for cars is quite near, around 2025 EV's will become around 5 times cheaper to own than equivalent ICE's. Tesla has shown it's commercially possible, and all the big automative groups, plus a few others like Dyson, are throwing billions at this.

      There will remain a need for big diesel engines for a while yet, at least another 10 years. Trucks, mobile machines like earthmovers, and marine all demand a power and range capacity that is not within reach of electric just yet. Besides the big diesel engines that power large ships are the most thermodynamically efficient heat engines humans have ever built.

      That deals to about 30 – 50% of the CO2 problem (depending on national energy use profile). The balance is important things like electricity generation, domestic and industrial heat, steel and concrete manufacture and fugitive emissions from major activities such as agriculture. And of course EV's will increase the demand for electricity. In this solar and wind will continue to play a useful bridging role, but the sheer numbers are against them ever fully taking up the whole load in the long term.

      NZ is in an almost unique position, we could get to 100% zero carbon with solar, wind and supercritical geothermal. Turn off Tiwai Point and we get 20% or so more electricity to play with. Our agricultural methane may have some good solutions within a 5 year time frame. For our current population we're sitting sweet, and we could easily get to 100% zero carbon by 2030 if there was a bi-partisan political will to do so.

      If you do get around to reading this Peter, could you please indicate whether you think this outline is reasonable or not?

      • Incognito 11.4.1

        For our current population we're sitting sweet, and we could easily get to 100% zero carbon by 2030 if there was a bi-partisan political will to do so.

        QED

        • Robert Guyton 11.4.1.1

          What can our politicians do in the face of international industry's (read, oil) pressure?

      • Pete George 11.4.2

        The question … that weka posed in the OP … and effectively you are restating is 'how fast can we make the transition?' In that I suspect the govt is being way too conservative

        I suggested that the Government was being too conservative, but that was ignored by the usual rush to dump on with false assumptions.

        RL, I think what you suggest here is quite feasible for New Zealand. But I think it requires a much more concerted effort and far better leadership from Government.

        NZ is in an almost unique position, we could get to 100% zero carbon with solar, wind and supercritical geothermal. Turn off Tiwai Point and we get 20% or so more electricity to play with.

        Turning off Tiwai will be hard on Southland for a while, but I think this is inevitable sooner or later, and the sooner it happens the quicker we will get to 95% or so renewable (the final 5% will be more difficult and expensive).

        There could be a creative way to help compensate Southland, like financing more aggressive experimental reductions in farming emissions without impacting on production too much. Farming efficiency is one of our strengths. We need to be able to do it with reduced environmental effects.

        • Pete George 11.4.2.1

          Another possibility is to use ex-Tiwai power (Manapouri) to electrify farm production and transport to factories and at least to ports. Southland is reasonably compact and flat so if it is viable anywhere it should work there.

          There may be reasons why this can’t work, but I think we should be looking for far more innovative ways to transition.

        • Pete George 11.4.2.2

          I'd much rather the Provincial Growth Fund was being used to try a few game changing innovations rather than being dished out to local bodies and opportunists who seem to see it as some sort of lotto handout for their pet wee projects.

          • Incognito 11.4.2.2.1

            Pete, you’re confusing the PGF with Callaghan Innovation. They dish out the dosh to game changers and industry disruptors. I don’t know whether they invested in e-scooters to compete with Uber but this is the sort of stuff that will push up NZ into the world of big players. Forget about the provinces; we need cheap land to retire in luxury in our lifestyle homes.

        • RedLogix 11.4.2.3

          Thanks for clarifying that. And some interesting suggestions around Southland. From a global pov shutting down Tiwai Pt might not be much help if the same aluminium production is shifted to another country that produces electricity with more CO2 … but that argument cannot run forever; eventually NZ will have to judge that it's in our best interests to look after our own CO2 targets. And as you say it would be tough on Southland; Tiwai Pt is a large employer with many well paying jobs. Farming alone doesn't really replace it.

          But then Australia has a similar problem with closing down coal mining … and that's a bitter pill they will have to swallow too.

          One thing we do have to consider; that if we go to carbon zero with a heavy reliance on solar and wind, it will be very difficult to maintain even our modest heavy industry base. These sources simply don't cut mustard for big dairy, steel and cement plants that need many 100's MW of base load to operate. Given NZ public opinion is so very anti-nuclear, the only other option I can see working might be super-critical geothermal. Some research is happening already, maybe that needs more funding to accelerate development.

          However we look at this, I think we both agree the ground is shifting under this issue a lot faster than most people think, and certainly faster than our political system is reacting to. Shaw seems to have made a decent start, but do you have any concrete steps in mind on how we might encourage more momentum across the board?

          • Pete George 11.4.2.3.1

            "do you have any concrete steps in mind on how we might encourage more momentum across the board?"

            Less bickering and point scoring and arrogance and divisiveness (I've argued this for years).

            Overwhelming the noise on the fringes with decent debate and common purpose – there are obviously differences in what needs to be done and how fast and how drastic change needs to happen, but the bigger and stronger the push for more to happen faster the more likely Government will do more, especially in an election year.

            Despite the sneers here most change in a democracy (in any country) is incremental. We need to push for more, faster, bolder increments.

            It's better to start with smaller steps and accelerate them as will and funds and proof they will work increases.

            And this has to happen across the political spectrum. We know what the Greens want.

            Some of the more extreme Greens won't get all they want, but they are best to work with more moderate measures (but more radical than what is happening now) instead of dissing anyone who is deemed not to be extreme enough.

            Labour particularly needs pushed on this. Jacinda has made it clear she sees climate as a big issue, but she needs to deliver on her rhetoric. If middle Aotearoa (social and political leanings) show they are generally supportive of more being done then the erst of Labour will push for more.

            It's also important that National is nudged towards more support for more action. They have indicated they are willing to support some action. That's not enough for me, yet, but dumping on them is not going to help move them more. Popular support will.

            Some have proposed a political/democratic revolution to make radical change. They want to change the whole political/economic system. I think this is idealistic and a huge risk, and it won't happen under our MMP anyway. There is no sign of support beyond a small group, here at least.

            But I think we do need a political revolution of sorts.

            Parties have adapted to MMP, but many of those active in politics are still in last century single party mode, where they want their lot to do everything they want. With social media they have amplified bickering and division. This is counter-productive to progress.

            You're better to win some modest increments than have no big increments. I think that James Shaw understands this, and has quietly but effectively worked positively CROSS PARTY on setting a framework for more sustainable political support on climate measures – from the parties in Parliament.

            I think this is a good place to work from.

            The more extreme Greens will get more of what they want (not everything, no one does in a democracy) if they support Shaw and support what he is doing, and embrace and encourage more moderate support. At the moment they are alienating potential support because it isn't 'pure' or idealistic or radical enough for them.

            Similar for the more radical side of Labour support.

            To build momentum with popular support people in politics need to look at how they can work together far better than at present. Under MMP divide and conquer doesn't work. Unite on what is possible rather than bicker on differences of degree of change.

            I think that a side effect of this approach will rebuild Green party support. It will also build more confidence in Labour to do more. It will also nudge National more to the centre, which I think is a good thing.

            Parties already work together and cooperate quite a lot in Parliament, but put on a more combative PR charade, apparently thinking that this will swing votes their way. I think they are likely to improve their chances of getting votes if they are seem to be more positive on common purposes rather than highlighting differences and dumping on each other so much.

            We could have a revolution of sorts in our politics – but it would take a rethink by those active in political forums. I think that to an extent this has happened here over the last few years. But there is still support for dumping on perceived foes, with false assumptions (I don't know if they are misconceptions or deliberate).

            I think that the 'you can only discuss this if I think you are left enough' stuff is misguided too. If you're in politics you should be prepared to have your views challenged and contested. I think you learn more from that than happy clapping.You also have a better change of building wider support for at least some change in the right direction.

            The 'non-incremental or nothing' stuff is doomed to failure.

            Perhaps old political practices are too entrenched here, but if you want faster, bigger increments you need wider support, not divide and wither.

            This is only a small niche in the political playground, but there's some signs of recognition that change is needed in political media.

            Tracy Watkins: The election is nearly here – let's strip it back to what really matters

            The stakes are high so it's not surprising they play the game this way. Winning power means getting to bend an economy and a people to suit their vision.

            But that's also why we deserve much better.

            So once Ardern names the date, let's all pledge to strip this election back to its essentials, and focus on the story behind the personalities and the soundbites.

            There seems to be a will to change for the better there. I think that should be encouraged.

            • Robert Guyton 11.4.2.3.1.1

              "Less bickering and point scoring and arrogance and divisiveness (I've argued this for years)."

              My bold. Good early morning humour there, Pete; gotta hand it to ya!

              • RedLogix

                Robert … could you please exercise some self control. That was a damn good reply from Peter; and you troll him?

            • RedLogix 11.4.2.3.1.2

              @PeteG
              I was scrolling upwards through the thread and was skimming your reply sort of backwards (it's an odd habit I have, sometimes I find it easier to read an argument from the end back toward the beginning.) And I was quite impressed at the care and detail that had gone into it. When I got to the top and saw your name I have to say I'm delighted.

              More than anything else I would like to see us work towards creating the psychological 'safe space' (for want of a better term) to allow people to change their minds and shift away from previously polarised and entrenched positions. Already, just recently, there are plenty of good examples of people trying this approach.

              I enjoyed this deep dive into our evolved values and psychology that goes a long way to explaining how and why so much irrationality got entangled with what was essentially only ever a science and engineering problem: https://quillette.com/2020/01/13/an-evolutionary-explanation-for-unscientific-beliefs/

          • Gosman 11.4.2.3.2

            You won't get any significant moves beyond those already being made if the argument is framed as as the cause being Capitalism and the solution a form of environmental socialism (or at least statism). By doing this you set up a massive blow back from groups that might in fact be sympathetic to some of the goals you are trying to achieve via reducing GHG in the atmosphere. If you disagree with this analysis how do you explain the failure of the recent climate negotiations?

            • Robert Guyton 11.4.2.3.2.1

              "groups that might in fact be sympathetic to some of the goals you are trying to achieve via reducing GHG in the atmosphere"

              How gracious of them. Do they refuse to do anything then, because their capitalist feelings are hurt by us mean Lefties?

              Snowflakes.

              " how do you explain the failure of the recent climate negotiations?"

              Capitalist greed.

              • Gosman

                If you frame the debate in terms of Capitalist versus the Environment then it will take decades before you get any significant change (if you get any at all). Do you think we have decades to sort through this debate?

          • Drowsy M. Kram 11.4.2.3.3

            "Given NZ public opinion is so very anti-nuclear…"

            "…the ground is shifting under this issue…"; however, given that we're "The Shaky Isles", that "very anti-nuclear" public opinion is appropriate. We don't need a Fukushima nuclear disaster on our doorstep.

            "The accident was started by the Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami on Friday, 11 March 2011."
            "An ongoing intensive cleanup program to both decontaminate affected areas and decommission the plant will take 30 to 40 years…"
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster

            Evolution is powered by errors, and has equipped animals to learn from their mistakes. Recently a few humans have acquired the ability to identify existential threats posed by long-term trends, but the species may not be leaving itself enough time to identify and apply appropriate corrective measures.

            Can the tried and true method of solving problems by trial and error decrease the momentum of civilisation sufficiently to avert (a partial) collapse? Time will tell…

            • RedLogix 11.4.2.3.3.1

              If you had followed the whole thread it would be clear that if some fool was to try and build a PWR reactor in New Zealand … I would be first in the very long queue to lie down in front of the bulldozers. As you rightly say, the geotech hazards in this land alone should rule them out. And unlike Japan we have a low population and can reach carbon zero without nuclear.

              But globally it's a very different story. Coal and oil still provide 70% of our total energy consumption. And that consumption is growing by aprox 5% pa. Look at those graphs, solar and wind are growing exceptionally well, but that's a huge gap to close. And that should prompt a reality check:

              As I've outlined elsewhere Richard Nixon may well be remembered by future generations, not as the President who was impeached, but as the fool who stopped Alvin Weinberg developing a safer form of nuclear fission. Then came Three Mile Island as as usual the American's went ape-shit, totally over reacted, regulated all innovation out of the nuclear industry and loaded on costs that ensured it would be uneconomic. The NRC have essentially strangled nuclear power to death, with Greenpeace egging them on from the sidelines.

              If Weinberg's MSR vision had been adopted by industry as the way forward 50 years ago, and we had built our current current energy supply on them … we would not be having this fraught conversation on climate change. Period.

              • Drowsy M. Kram

                Just 'voicing' an opinion – agree entirely that growth in human consumption isn't sustainable. Since we can't ethically halt global human population growth, how else might we stabilise global consumption? I'm trying to redirect my momentum – walking rather than driving, eating less meat, cutting back on international travel and other non-essentials, buying less and locally – look at ME, my halo is shining.

                Re Nixon and Weinberg, do you think that even now some senior US politician might be making foolish decisions on the future of energy generation? Maybe Greenpeace has Trump’s ear

                • RedLogix

                  There is good reason to embrace simplicity, efficiency and less profligate lifestyles. It is good for our soul to consider how lightly we can tread on the face of a planet who nurtured us from clay. We could all do with a bit more physical effort, hardship even, in our lives. We're just too damned comfortable and complacent.

                  But as a solution for CO2 … not so much. Even if the developed 1b were to heroically reduce their consumption by half … and assuming the other 9b or so humans were to grow and match us … the total resource consumption will have increased by a rough factor of five times in the next 100 years. And that isn't sustainable either; at least not with our present toolkit.

                  • Drowsy M. Kram

                    "Even if the developed 1b were to heroically reduce their consumption by half…" – I'm assuming you're using 'heroically' sarcastically, as was my reference to a fictitious halo. Such a large (50%) reduction in consumption by "the golden 1b" would occur only if it were forced; 'heroic' is a more apt descriptor for the current foolhardy level of resistance to consuming less.

                    Yes, consuming less is not the whole 'solution' to global warming, but it could be part of a path towards at least stabilising CO2 emissions. A meaningful reduction in emissions in the next 50 years isn’t feasible; we're going to need a lot of energy from conventional sources just to cope with the impacts of climate change. And it’s a good choice for all the reasons you mention.
                    Every little bit helps smiley

                    • RedLogix

                      I'm assuming you're using 'heroically' sarcastically

                      No … I meant in the sense of a 'massive effort, sacrifice and commitment'.

                      And then look further into the future; past the next 100 years or so. Is it likely that the human race will forever constrain itself to a low energy, low resource use path? From an evolutionary perspective its a dead end.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      "And then look further into the future; past the next 100 years or so. Is it likely that the human race will forever constrain itself to a low energy, low resource use path? From an evolutionary perspective its a dead end."

                      Whaadabout the whales? They fit that description and aren't they swimming philosophers? What do you believe evolution is hoping to achieve?

                    • Drowsy M. Kram

                      Looking more than 50 years ahead now would be ludicrously ambitious for me; fortunately at my age I don't have to worry.

                      It's funny, a flight of fancy in my youth was the idea that I might skip forward in time (to 2060, then 2160, etc.), by use of some improbable suspended animation technology, to experience the future achievements of human civilisation.

                      A civilisation of 10 billion souls won't “go gentle into that good night” – expect 'fireworks'.

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star_(Clarke_short_story)
                      [Prefer this one over “The Nine Billion Names of God”]

                    • RedLogix

                      In the meantime on another thread we can't even make up our minds if we're boys or girls … and now we're supposed to be whales? cheeky

                      @Drowsy.

                      Indeed. One story I read as a teenager has stayed with me ever since. Clark’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Billion_Names_of_God

                    • Robert Guyton

                      Do you think we're destined to take all of nature in our hands and mould it into the form we deem best?

                      What is the ultimate evolutionary goal for humans, in your view?
                      @RedDrowsy
                      “Indeed. One story I read as a teenager has stayed with me ever since. Clark’s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Billion_Names_of_God
                      Same.

                    • RedLogix

                      Do you think we're destined to take all of nature in our hands and mould it into the form we deem best?

                      That's a very good question; I'll not pretend to an firmly held answer.

                      One way I could express my feeling on this would be to consider the entire history of the human race as a metaphor for a child growing, through infancy, childhood and adolescence. I might roughly correlate each with say our hunter gatherer existence, then our agricultural history, then our industrial transformation. And like most adolescent's the past few hundred years have been a turbulent time. But they are not an end point.

                      The next phase has to be adulthood.

                      Up until now we have been primarily a biological species, a child of the natural world; now we are on the brink of becoming the first 'post-biological species', the first species to step outside of the constraints of evolution, the first species capable of altering it's environment and our own selves, capable of consciously writing our own future. That's a terrifying responsibility, but it's what adulthood means.

                      And part of that responsibility will be for the healing our birth planet, becoming her guardians rather than a burden. Imagine earth as our literal mother; we have treated her shabbily, shamefully, and the day has arrived when we must make this up to her, perhaps make her metaphorically proud of us. But we could not do this as children, we must become adults in possession of our full faculties and powers first.

                      That doesn’t directly answer your question I realise, but it’s how I would start to frame one.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      RedLogix – I genuinely appreciate your taking the time to "frame up" your view on this pivotal issue.

                      "Imagine earth as our literal mother; we have treated her shabbily, shamefully, and the day has arrived when we must make this up to her, perhaps make her metaphorically proud of us"

                      Using your analogy; would it not be wise to consult with the Mother before "becoming the first 'post-biological species'", that is, go all "non-Mother" on her? Should we perhaps learn (re-learn) how to read/hear/heed/listen-to, our Mother, before engineering the (supposed) next evolutionary step? The trouble we've got ourselves into as adolescents seems to stem from being so blind and deaf to the advice I'm certain is being offered in every moment by every living non-human thing (animal, vegetable, mineral and ethereal).

                      smiley

                    • RedLogix

                      And I truly appreciate the challenge, like most people I can only really think when I speak or write. This conversation is a good example of a distributed network being far greater than the power of any single node 🙂

                      You are quite right, in our adolescent incarnation we have been arrogant and wilful. If I may divert onto what may look like a tangent. In rough terms, prior to the scientific revolution, people explained and managed their world using what I call 'observational intelligence'. Looking closely at natural patterns was essential in order to hunt, gather and grow food reliably. The survivors where the smart ones who we very, very good at this skill. And this skill manifested itself in our cultures, it gave rise to the great mythologies, the overarching moral narratives, the philosophies, models of healing such as the traditional Chinese evolved … and so on. The primary hallmark was observation of patterns, followed by narrative.

                      The scientific revolution upended this model, it would propose a hypothesis (a narrative) and then seek experimental evidence (observation) to prove or disprove it. In particular science was deeply distrustful of our ancient pattern recognition skills, because all too often it would lead us astray. In order to do science well you have to be deeply ruthless with your innate tendency to fool yourself into believing what you want to believe.

                      About four years ago a close friend, a man I admired profoundly died way too soon in life. I still feel robbed. He was one of those rare people who combined the best of both thinking skills, the well trained science mind AND the subtle, searching poetic soul of the observing mind. He could stand next to a glacier and thrill a group with the life of the great white beast, and then crouch next to a slow flowing stream and tell me stories of what some small bubbles of gas trickling to the surface meant. I had to be careful walking in his living room, it was entire moving installation of suspended objects, each with a meaning, hovering over tottering piles of textbooks, albums, histories, biographies and art. Then we would find a feed from his rustic garden and I would listen entranced over an earthy soup, to this woven tapestry of art, science and life, opening doors into both logic and imagination all at the same time.

                      I dream that maybe our great grandchildren's generation will have more like him.

                    • Robert Guyton

                      I'm sorry to hear he's gone. I wonder what his view on this topic was/would be?

                      Presently, I'm reading/working through: "New Eyes for Plants"by Margaret Colquhoun (scientist) and Axel Ewald (artist). The blurb says: "This shows how science can be practiced as an art and how art can help science through using the holistic approach of Goethe". It's a workbook. Chapter 1 is titled: A question of Life – or not

                      It does, I imagine, what you describe in your friend: combines "the best of both thinking skills, the well trained science mind AND the subtle, searching poetic soul of the observing mind." So far, it's made my head spin a bit and there's plenty of reading ahead of me smiley

    • Paul Campbell 11.5

      Of course we should stop digging it up, we're burning the Amazon, but over geological time the earth has been burying biological carbon bringing us to the current (or rather geologically recent) equilibrium that we (and out culture/agriculture/etc) have evolved to deal with.

      But were not just burning the Amazon, we're digging up and burning ALL the Amazons over geological time – we don't have anything in place that's capable of removing environmental carbon at the same rate – in fact most of what we have is the ocean (which acidifies as it takes up CO2), and trees (but the Amazon is burning).

      IMHO we should stop recycling carbon (throw all that paper down old coal mines) that will make unburned carbon (ie trees) worth more, people will grow more.

      The easiest thing NZ can do today to reduce our CO2 emissions is to shut Tiwai (it makes fully 5% of our CO2 emissions, they burn sacrificial carbon anodes as part of their process, every 2 atoms of Al requires 3 of CO2) shut it down and we reduce by 5% – plus a further 5-10% if we use that electricity to remove as much fossil fuel power generation as possible in the rest of the grid (this means building a tie line from Roxburgh to Benmore so the power can get to the NI).

      • Robert Guyton 11.5.1

        Crikey!

      • weka 11.5.2

        "IMHO we should stop recycling carbon (throw all that paper down old coal mines) that will make unburned carbon (ie trees) worth more, people will grow more."

        Wow. Not much takes me by surprise atm, but that's a doozy.

        NRT tweeted this today (below), and it made me realise I don't understand the mainstream economics of converting pastoral farming to forestry. What you just said puts a new spin on that. Is the idea that planting more trees and using them and planting more will keep sequestering carbon. How many things can we make from wood? What's the carbon gain/loss from harvesting compared to growing forests to climax state? Or harvesting from climax forests?

        https://twitter.com/norightturnnz/status/1216511556227235840

        • Paul Campbell 11.5.2.1

          That's sort of part of the point, growing trees sequesters carbon, but unless you put it somewhere permanent it doesn't sequester it for ever, my 100 year old wooden house has done a good job of that, but it wont last forever, where will the wood go eventually? hopefully back into the ground and not burned.

          Longer term we have to do something with those trees, and the things we make from them, wood and paper products

      • weka 11.5.3

        do you have anything I can read about the Tiwai GHGs? (something for a lay person).

        • Paul Campbell 11.5.3.1

          (I haven't done the math for a year or so … I may well be off a bit …. let's do it again)

          It's essentially high-school chemistry – the Hall–Héroult process does a mixture of these two reactions:

          Al2O3 + 3C -> 2Al + 3CO (and then 3CO->3CO2)

          2 Al2O3 + 3 C → 4 Al + 3 CO2

          So atomic weight of Al is ~27, molecular weight of CO2 is 44 so making 1 unit by mass of Al makes 1.6-2.4 units of CO2 (let's say 2 units – the wikipedia page for Tiwai says 1.97)

          Last year Tiwai made 340111 tonnes of Al so 680222 tonnes of CO2.

          NZ CO2 (not CO2 equivalent) emisions 2016 was ~36 million tonnes. So I was off, it's more like 1.9% of our CO2 emissions (my previous "5%" was wrong) – however ~8% of our emissions are from electricity generation, as I originally mentioned replacing that is the big win.

      • pat 11.5.4

        Tiwai produces 0.8% of our emissions…the power to run it is hydro from Manapouri. It may be argued that IF Tiwai wasnt running then there would be less demand for Huntley but there isnt currently the capacity to move that power from Southland to where the demand is.

  12. gsays 12

    Weaning ourselves off the supermarket is a great start.

    Buying locally, supporting primary producers, getting used to a lesser range of foodstuffs. When our $ move, other businesses can grow, employ and innovate.

    A generation ago, diesel miles were something to be avoided, we seem to be willingly blind to them now.

    • weka 12.1

      Yes! Food is a good one to lead with because it flows into regenag/organic, local employment, relocalised economy, landcare/restoration, health, as well as low food miles and reducing GHGs. Then we see the things are all connected and come to understand that ecosystems have stability and resiliency from those connections, and that's the game changer.

      • gsays 12.1.1

        I would also argue that time banking is another exercise that will build and reinforce communities.

        As we move/are moved by the interesting times ahead, the communities that have been undone by neo-liberalism's race to the bottom, will need strengthening.

        • weka 12.1.1.1

          Forgot about timebanks! Thanks, these are the safety nets that stop people on the fringe from freaking out as much. Fast low carbon isn't the end of the world.

  13. Richard@DownSouth 13

    $74 Trillion USD… over 143 countries, creates over 26 million jobs, and pays for itself in 7 years

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-20/going-100-green-will-pay-for-itself-in-seven-years-study-finds

    Good commentary on it

    • Gosman 13.1

      That video highlights what is wrong with the efforts to push an immediate massive solution to climate change.

      There is no mention of the mechanism of how this 74 trillion worth of investment across 143 countries will actually work. The assumption is that it is easy to do and the only reason that it is not being done is because the "fossil fuel industry" funds opposition.

      The unstated implication of this belief is we should restrict what people do so as to stop people opposing what is quite straight forward and easy to do. That is dangerous thinking.

      • Drowsy M. Kram 13.1.1

        BAU is fine personally, just not so good for the future of civilisation and the rest of the environment.

        Societal inertia will stymie efforts to redirect the momentum of civilisation, but even futile efforts deserve recognition as we squirm (and burn) under the thumb of physics. Too bleak?

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Greater Auckland 2.0 – we need your help!
    Hi, we’re Greater Auckland. We’ve been a part of the landscape for over 15 years now. Over that time, we’ve provided informed commentary, evidence-based analysis, and inspiring visions for the future of Tāmaki Makaurau. You might know us from such hits as: The Congestion-Free Network 2013 (and its 2017 ...
    Greater AucklandBy Greater Auckland
    26 mins ago
  • Distractions and Inaction.
    Fancy, a fast carA bag full of lootI can nearly guaranteeYou'll end up with the bootThe Prime Minister arrived home, perhaps a bit surprised, maybe even secretly a little pleased at the diversion, to find the country falling apart. Things going more badly that even his c-list, self back-slapping, trip ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    39 mins ago
  • KiwiRail aground while Government obfuscates
    The problems at KiwiRail go further and deeper than the maintenance issue, which caused the inter-island ferry Aratere to run aground on Saturday. The company is also the subject of a damning report published last week about the way it runs its rail operations from the Transport Accident Investigation Commission. ...
    PolitikBy Richard Harman
    3 hours ago
  • 2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #25
    A listing of 32 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, June 16, 2024 thru Sat, June 22, 2024. Stories we promoted this week, by publication date: Before June 16 ‘Unprecedented mass coral bleaching’ expected in 2024, says expert, ...
    12 hours ago
  • The Realm Of The Possible.
    The People’s House: What would it be like to live in a country where a single sermon could prick the conscience of the comfortable? Where a journalist could rouse a whole city to action? Where the government could be made to respond to the people’s concerns? Where real change was possible? And ...
    21 hours ago
  • Public Service Day
    Good morn or evening friendsHere's your friendly announcerI have serious news to pass on to everybodyWhat I'm about to sayCould mean the world's disasterCould change your joy and laughter to tears and painIt's thatLove's in need of love todayDon't delaySend yours in right awayHate's goin' 'roundBreaking many heartsStop it pleaseBefore ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    22 hours ago
  • When is a road of National significance not a road of National significance?
    I loved everything about my first Cook Strait ferry crossing: a day parked in the car in howling Wellington wind and driving Wellington rain, waiting to hear if they were going to sail or not; watching the huge black ministerial limousines come and go; listening to the adventures of Chicken ...
    More Than A FeildingBy David Slack
    1 day ago
  • Fact Brief – Was the Medieval Warm Period a global event?
    Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. This fact brief was written by John Mason in collaboration with members from the Gigafact team. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline. Was the Medieval Warm Period a global ...
    2 days ago
  • Aotearoa Runs Aground
    Your face has fallen sad nowFor you know the time is nighWhen I must remove your wingsAnd you, you must try to flyCome sail your ships around meAnd burn your bridges downWe make a little history, babyEvery time you come aroundWhen I went to bed last night I thought the ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    2 days ago
  • Wagon keeps movin'
    Hello! Here comes the Saturday edition of More Than A Feilding, catching you up on the past somewhat interrupted week. Still on the move!Share Read more ...
    More Than A FeildingBy David Slack
    2 days ago
  • Mainstreaming Māori
    Mainstreaming need not be inherently anti-Māori. It will be if it is done badly because it will be anti-those-in need, and proportionally more of them are Māori.That the Coalition Government says it will deliver public services on the basis of need rather than, say, race deserves consideration, even though many ...
    PunditBy Brian Easton
    2 days ago
  • National says “fuck you”
    The Justice Committee has reported back on the government's racist bill to eliminate Māori representation in local government. The report duly notes the Waitangi Tribunal's finding that the bill breaches te Tiriti, and the bill's inconsistency with our international human rights obligations - and then proceeds to ignore both. Instead, ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    3 days ago
  • Christopher Luxon is – Big in Japan
    This week our Prime Minister Christopher Luxon… mmm, let’s take a moment to consider just how good that sounds. Hope you weren’t eating.Anyway that guy. Better? That bloke from the telly, he said - what I would say to you is… I’m big in Japan. My kind of people, hard ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    3 days ago
  • Weekly Roundup 21-June-2024
    Tis the winter solstice! The shortest day and longest night of the year. The good news: we’re on our way back to summertime. Here’s another roundup of stories to brighten up your Friday. Our header image is from CRL and shows Waihorotiu Station lit up for Matariki 2024 The ...
    Greater AucklandBy Greater Auckland
    3 days ago
  • Bernard’s mid-winter pick ‘n’ mix for Friday, June 21
    Our economic momentum remains anaemic, and it’s possible the tiny increase in GDP was a ‘dead cat bounce’. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: Per-capita GDP has fallen 4.3% from its peak over the last 21 months, which is more than it it fell in the Global Financial Crisis recession ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    3 days ago
  • The Futility of Punishment
    Hi,I was in Texas recently and couldn’t stop thinking about how in some parts of America they really like to kill their prisoners. As a society we tend to agree murder is wrong, but somewhere along the way Texas figured it’s fine if it’s after 6pm and the killing is ...
    David FarrierBy David Farrier
    3 days ago
  • The new Beehive approach to the environment
    A persistent theme has been weaving between the Committee rooms at Parliament all this so-called “Scrutiny” week as MPs have probed Ministers and agencies about their work and plans. The question has been simply what the environmental price might be if the country begins to accelerate its infrastructure building to ...
    PolitikBy Richard Harman
    3 days ago
  • Skeptical Science New Research for Week #25 2024
    Open access notables Climate Change Is Leading to a Convergence of Global Climate Distribution, Li et al., Geophysical Research Letters: The impact of changes in global temperatures and precipitation on climate distribution remains unclear. Taking the annual global average temperatures and precipitation as the origin, this study determined the climate distribution with the ...
    3 days ago
  • You take nicer pictures when you’re not drunk
    Readers keeping count will know it's more than five years since I gave up booze. Some of you get worried on my behalf when I recount a possibly testing moment. Anxious readers: today I got well tested.All the way across France I've been enquiring in my very polite and well-meaning but ...
    More Than A FeildingBy David Slack
    4 days ago
  • Cancer
    Turn awayIf you could, get me a drinkOf water 'cause my lips are chapped and fadedCall my Aunt MarieHelp her gather all my thingsAnd bury me in all my favourite coloursMy sisters and my brothers, stillI will not kiss you'Cause the hardest part of this is leaving youI remember the ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    4 days ago
  • Gordon Campbell on why we shouldn’t buy new planes for the PM
    Its not often that one has to agree with Judith Collins, but yes, it would indeed cost “hundreds of millions of dollars” (at least) to buy replacement aircraft to fly the Prime Minister on his overseas missions of diplomacy and trade. And yes, the public might well regard that spending ...
    WerewolfBy lyndon
    4 days ago
  • The Stadium Debate – What About the Transport Options?
    A few weeks ago, Auckland Council took another step in the long-running stadium saga, narrowing its shortlist down to two options for which they will now seek feasibility studies. The recommendation to move forward with a feasibility study was carried twenty to one by the council’s Governing Body for the ...
    4 days ago
  • Bernard’s mid-winter pick ‘n’ mix for Thursday, June 20
    Social Development Minister Louise Upston has defended the Government’s decision to save money by dumping a programme which tops up the pay of disabled workers. Photo: Lynn GrievesonTL;DR: It has emerged the National-ACT-NZ First Government decided to cut wages for disabled workers from the minimum wage to $2 an hour ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    4 days ago
  • Where the power really resides in Wellington
    The new Chief Executive of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) yesterday gave a Select Committee a brutally frank outline of the department’s role as the agency right at the centre of power in Wellington. Ben King, formerly a deputy Chief Executive at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs ...
    PolitikBy Richard Harman
    4 days ago
  • Climate Adam: Why we're still losing the fight against Methane
    This video includes conclusions of the creator climate scientist Dr. Adam Levy. It is presented to our readers as an informed perspective. Please see video description for references (if any). Carbon dioxide is the main culprit behind climate change. But in second place is methane: a greenhouse gas stronger than CO2, ...
    5 days ago
  • Climate Change: More ETS failure
    A few weeks ago, I blogged about the (then) upcoming ETS auction, raising the prospect of it failing, leaving the government with a messy budget hole. The auction was today, and indeed, it failed. In fact, it was such a failure that no-one even bothered to bid. Its easy to ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    5 days ago
  • The Return of Jacinda.
    Oh, take me, take me, take meTo the dreamer's ballI'll be right on time and I'll dress so fineYou're gonna love me when you see meI won't have to worryTake me, take mePromise not to wake me'Til it's morningIt's all been trueEarly morning yesterday, well before dawn, doom-scrolling.Not intentionally, that’s ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    5 days ago
  • How good is the interim NW busway?
    This is a guest post by Pshem Kowalczyk, a long-time follower of the blog. With great fanfare, just over six months ago (on 12 November 2023), AT launched its interim busway for the NorthWest region, with the new WX express service at the heart of the changes. I live ...
    Greater AucklandBy Guest Post
    5 days ago
  • Consumer confidence collapses after Budget, in contrast with rest of world
    The first widespread survey of consumers and voters since the Budget on May 30 shows a collapse in confidence. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: The belt-tightening and tax-cutting Budget delivered on May 30 has not delivered the boost to confidence in the economy the National-ACT-NZ First Government might have ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    5 days ago
  • The end for the Air Force 757s
    The Air Force 757 that broke down with the Prime Minister on board in Port Moresby on Sunday is considered so unreliable that it carries a substantial stock of spare parts when it travels overseas. And the plane also carries an Air Force maintenance team on board ready to make ...
    PolitikBy Richard Harman
    5 days ago
  • At a glance – Was 1934 the hottest year on record?
    On February 14, 2023 we announced our Rebuttal Update Project. This included an ask for feedback about the added "At a glance" section in the updated basic rebuttal versions. This weekly blog post series highlights this new section of one of the updated basic rebuttal versions and serves as a ...
    6 days ago
  • It's not New Zealand they've never heard of, it's him
    Sometimes you’ll just be so dog-tired, you can only keep yourself awake with a short stab of self-inflicted pain.A quick bite of the lip, for instance.Maybe a slight bite on the tongue or a dig of the nails.But what if you’re needing something a bit more painful?The solution is as ...
    More Than A FeildingBy David Slack
    6 days ago
  • Some “scrutiny” II
    Last month I blogged about the Ministry of Justice's Open Government Partnership commitment to strengthen scrutiny of Official Information Act exemption clauses in legislation", and how their existing efforts did not give much reason for confidence. As part of that, I mentioned that I had asked the Ministry for its ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    6 days ago
  • Gordon Campbell on why the Biden “peace plan” for Gaza is doomed
    After months and months of blocking every attempt by the UN and everyone else to achieve a Gaza ceasefire, US President Joe Biden is now marketing his own three-stage “peace plan” to end the conflict. Like every other contribution by the US since October 7, the Biden initiative is hobbled ...
    WerewolfBy lyndon
    6 days ago
  • Raised crossings: hearing the voice of vulnerable pedestrians
    This is a guest post by Vivian Naylor, who is the Barrier Free Advisor and Educator at CCS Disability Action, Northern Region, the largest disability support and advocacy organisation in Aotearoa New Zealand. She also advises on AT’s Public Transport and Capital Projects Accessibility Groups. Vivian has been advocating and ...
    Greater AucklandBy Guest Post
    6 days ago
  • Leaving on a Jet Plane
    So kiss me and smile for meTell me that you'll wait for meHold me like you'll never let me go'Cause I'm leavin' on a jet planeDon't know when I'll be back againOh babe, I hate to go“The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    6 days ago
  • Bernard's mid-winter pick 'n' mix for Tuesday, June 18
    The election promises of ‘better economic management’ are now ringing hollow, as NZ appears to be falling into a deeper recession, while other economies are turning the corner. Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: The economy and the housing market are slumping back into a deep recession this winter, contrasting ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    6 days ago
  • Scrutiny week off to rocky start
    Parliament’s new “Scrutiny” process, which is supposed to allow Select Committees to interrogate Ministers and officials in much more depth, has got off to a rocky start. Yesterday was the first day of “Scrutiny Week” which is supposed to see the Government grilled on how it spends taxpayers’ money and ...
    PolitikBy Richard Harman
    6 days ago
  • The choice could not be more stark’: How Trump and Biden compare on climate change
    This is a re-post from Yale Climate Connections by Barbara Grady Illustration by Samantha Harrington. Photo credits: Justin Lane-Pool/Getty Images, Win McNamee/Getty Images, European Space Agency. In an empty wind-swept field in Richmond, California, next to the county landfill, a company called RavenSr has plotted out land and won ...
    7 days ago
  • Differentiating between democracy and republic
    Although NZ readers may not be that interested in the subject and in lieu of US Fathers Day missives (not celebrated in NZ), I thought I would lay out some brief thoughts on a political subject being debated in the … Continue reading ...
    KiwipoliticoBy Pablo
    7 days ago
  • Bernard's mid-winter pick 'n' mix for Monday, June 17
    TL;DR: Chris Bishop talks up the use of value capture, congestion charging, PPPs, water meters, tolling and rebating GST on building materials to councils to ramp up infrastructure investment in the absence of the Government simply borrowing more to provide the capital.Meanwhile, Christopher Luxon wants to double the number of ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    1 week ago
  • You do have the power to change things
    When I was invited to come aboard and help with Greater Auckland a few months ago (thanks to Patrick!), it was suggested it might be a good idea to write some sort of autobiographical post by way of an introduction. This post isn’t quite that – although I’m sure I’lll ...
    Greater AucklandBy Connor Sharp
    1 week ago
  • Turning Away – Who Cares If We Don't?
    On the turning awayFrom the pale and downtroddenAnd the words they say which we won't understandDon't accept that, what's happeningIs just a case of other's sufferingOr you'll find that you're joining inThe turning awayToday’s guest kōrero is from Author Catherine Lea. So without further ado, over to Catherine…I’m so honoured ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    1 week ago
  • Dissecting Tickled
    Hi,Tickled was one of the craziest things that ever happened to me (and I feel like a lot of crazy things have happened to me).So ahead of the Webworm popup and Tickled screening in New Zealand on July 13, I thought I’d write about how we made that film and ...
    David FarrierBy David Farrier
    1 week ago
  • New Zealand Webworm Popup + Tickled!
    Hi,I’m doing a Webworm merch popup followed by a Tickled screening in Auckland, New Zealand on July 13th — and I’d love you to come. I got the urge to do this while writing this Webworm piece breaking down how we made Tickled, and talking to all the people who ...
    David FarrierBy David Farrier
    1 week ago
  • What China wants from NZ business
    One simple statistic said it all: China Premier Li Qiang asked Fonterra CEO Miles Hurrell what percentage of the company’s overall sales were made in China. “Thirty per cent,” said Hurrell. In other words, New Zealand’s largest company is more or less dependent on the Chinese market. But Hurrell is ...
    PolitikBy Richard Harman
    1 week ago
  • Review: The Worm Ouroboros, by E.R. Eddison (1922)
    One occasionally runs into the question of what J.R.R. Tolkien would have thought of George R.R. Martin. For years, I had a go-to online answer: we could use a stand-in. Tolkien’s thoughts on E.R. Eddison – that he appreciated the invented world, but thought the invented names were silly, and ...
    1 week ago
  • 2024 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #24
    A listing of 35 news and opinion articles we found interesting and shared on social media during the past week: Sun, June 9, 2024 thru Sat, June 15, 2024. Story of the week A glance at this week's inventory of what experts tell us is extreme weather mayhem juiced by ...
    1 week ago
  • Sunday Morning Chat
    After a busy week it’s a good day to relax. Clear blues skies here in Tamaki Makaurau, very peaceful but for my dogs sleeping heavily. In the absence of a full newsletter I thought I’d send out a brief update and share a couple of posts that popped up in ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    1 week ago
  • The Book of Henry
    Now in the land of Angus beef and the mighty ABsWhere the steaks were juicy and the rivers did run foulIt would often be said,This meal is terrible,andNo, for real this is legit the worst thing I've ever eatenBut this was an thing said only to others at the table,not ...
    More Than A FeildingBy David Slack
    1 week ago
  • Fact Brief – Is ocean acidification from human activities enough to impact marine ecosystems?
    Skeptical Science is partnering with Gigafact to produce fact briefs — bite-sized fact checks of trending claims. This fact brief was written by Sue Bin Park in collaboration with members from the Skeptical Science team. You can submit claims you think need checking via the tipline. Is ocean acidification from human ...
    1 week ago
  • Happiness is a Warm Gun
    She's not a girl who misses muchDo do do do do do, oh yeahShe's well-acquainted with the touch of the velvet handLike a lizard on a window paneI wouldn’t associate ACT with warmth, other than a certain fabled, notoriously hot, destination where surely they’re heading and many would like them ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    1 week ago
  • Still doing a good 20
    Hello! Here comes the Saturday edition of More Than A Feilding, catching you up on the past somewhat interrupted week. Still on the move!Share Read more ...
    More Than A FeildingBy David Slack
    1 week ago
  • Coalition of the Unwilling?
    What does Budget 2024 tell us about the current government? Muddle on?Coalition governments are not new. About 50 percent of the time since the first MMP election, there has been a minority government, usually with allied parties holding ministerial portfolios outside cabinets. For 10 percent of the time there was ...
    PunditBy Brian Easton
    1 week ago
  • Of red flags and warning signs in comments on social media
    Somewhat surprisingly for what is regarded as a network of professionals, climate science misinformation is getting shared on LinkedIn, joining other channels where this is happening. Several of our recent posts published on LinkedIn have attracted the ire of various commenters who apparently are in denial about human-caused climate change. Based ...
    1 week ago
  • All good, still
    1. On what subject is Paul Henry even remotely worth giving the time of day?a. The state of our nationb. The state of the ACT partyc. How to freak out potential buyers of your gin palace by baking the remains of your deceased parent into its fittings2. Now that New ...
    More Than A FeildingBy David Slack
    1 week ago
  • The looting is the point
    Last time National was in power, they looted the state, privatising public assets and signing hugely wasteful public-private partnership (PPP) contracts which saw foreign consortiums provide substandard infrastructure while gouging us for profits. You only have to look at the ongoing fiasco of Transmission Gully to see how it was ...
    No Right TurnBy Idiot/Savant
    1 week ago
  • The Illusion of Power: How Local Government Bureaucrats Overawe Democratically-Elected Councillors..
    The Democratic Façade Of Local Government: Our district and city councillors are democratically elected to govern their communities on one very strict condition – that they never, ever, under any circumstances, attempt to do so.A DISINTEGRATION OF LOYALTIES on the Wellington City Council has left Mayor Tory Whanau without a ...
    1 week ago
  • Lowlights & Bright Spots
    I can feel the lowlights coming over meI can feel the lowlights, from the state I’m inI can see the light now even thought it’s dimA little glow on the horizonAnother week of lowlights from our government, with the odd bright spot and a glow on the horizon. The light ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    1 week ago
  • Weekly Roundup 14-June-2024
    Another week, another roundup of things that caught our eye on our favourite topics of transport, housing and how to make cities a little bit greater. This Week in Greater Auckland On Monday, Connor wrote about Kāinga Ora’s role as an urban development agency Tuesday’s guest post by ...
    Greater AucklandBy Greater Auckland
    1 week ago
  • The Hoon around the week to June 14
    Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: The podcast above of the weekly ‘hoon’ webinar for paying subscribers features co-hosts and talking with:The Kākā’s climate correspondent about the National-ACT-NZ First Government’s moves this week to take farming out of the ETS and encourage more mining and oil and ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    1 week ago
  • Climate policy axed in broad daylight, while taxpayer liabilities grow in the dark
    In 2019, Shane Jones addressed the “50 Shades of Green” protest at Parliament: Now he is part of a government giving those farmers a pass on becoming part of the ETS, as well as threatening to lock in offshore oil exploration and mining for decades. Photo: Lynn GrievesonTL;DR: Here’s the ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    1 week ago
  • Rage Bait!
    Hi,Today’s newsletter is all about how easy it is to get sucked into “rage bait” online, and how easy it is to get played.But first I wanted to share something that elicited the exact opposite of rage in me — something that made me feel incredibly proud, whilst also making ...
    David FarrierBy David Farrier
    1 week ago
  • Bernard's Dawn Chorus and pick 'n' mix for Friday, June 14
    Seymour said lower speed limits “drained the joy from life as people were forced to follow rules they knew made no sense.” File Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: My six things to note in Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Friday, June 14 were:The National/ACT/NZ First ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    1 week ago
  • Friendly but frank talks with China Premier
    It sounded like the best word to describe yesterday’s talks between Chinese Premier Li Qiang and his heavyweight delegation of Ministers and officials and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and New Zealand Ministers and officials was “frank.” But it was the kind of frankness that friends can indulge in. It ...
    PolitikBy Richard Harman
    1 week ago
  • Skeptical Science New Research for Week #24 2024
    Open access notables Wildfire smoke impacts lake ecosystems, Farruggia et al., Global Change Biology: We introduce the concept of the lake smoke-day, or the number of days any given lake is exposed to smoke in any given fire season, and quantify the total lake smoke-day exposure in North America from 2019 ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Join us for the weekly Hoon on YouTube Live
    Photo by Mathias Elle on UnsplashIt’s that new day of the week (Thursday rather than Friday) when we have our ‘hoon’ webinar with paying subscribers to The Kākā for an hour at 5 pm.Jump on this link on YouTube Livestream for our chat about the week’s news with special guests:5.00 ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    2 weeks ago
  • Geoffrey Miller: China’s message to New Zealand – don’t put it all at risk
    Don’t put it all at risk. That’s likely to be the take-home message for New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in his meetings with Li Qiang, the Chinese Premier. Li’s visit to Wellington this week is the highest-ranking visit by a Chinese official since 2017. The trip down under – ...
    Democracy ProjectBy Geoffrey Miller
    2 weeks ago
  • The Real Thing
    I know the feelingIt is the real thingThe essence of the soulThe perfect momentThat golden momentI know you feel it tooI know the feelingIt is the real thingYou can't refuse the embraceNo?Sometimes we face the things we most dislike. A phobia or fear that must be confronted so it doesn’t ...
    Nick’s KōreroBy Nick Rockel
    2 weeks ago
  • Gordon Campbell on how moderates empower the political right
    Struth, what a week. Having made sure the rural sector won’t have to pay any time soon for its pollution, PM Christopher Luxon yesterday chose Fieldays 2024 to launch a parliamentary inquiry into rural banking services, to see how the banks have been treating farmers faced with high interest rates. ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Bernard's Dawn Chorus and pick 'n' mix for Thursday, June 13
    In April, 17,656 people left Aotearoa-NZ to live overseas, averaging 588 a day, with just over half of those likely to have gone to Australia. Photo: Photo: Lynn Grieveson / The KākāTL;DR: My six things to note in Aotearoa-NZ’s political economy around housing, climate and poverty on Thursday, June 13 ...
    The KakaBy Bernard Hickey
    2 weeks ago
  • Our guide to having your say on the draft RLTP 2024
    Auckland’s draft Regional Land Transport Plan (RLTP) 2024 is open for feedback – and you only have until Monday 17 June to submit. Do it! Join the thousands of Aucklanders who are speaking up for wise strategic investment that will dig us out of traffic and give us easy and ...
    Greater AucklandBy Connor Sharp
    2 weeks ago
  • The China puzzle
    Chinese Premier Li Qiang arrives in Wellington today for a three-day visit to the country. The visit will take place amid uncertainty about the future of the New Zealand-China relationship. Li hosted a formal welcome and then lunch for then-Prime Minister Chris Hipkins in Beijing a year ago. The pair ...
    PolitikBy Richard Harman
    2 weeks ago
  • Fossil fuels are shredding our democracy
    This is a re-post of an article from the Climate Brink by Andrew Dessler published on June 3, 2024. I have an oped in the New York Times (gift link) about this. For a long time, a common refrain about the energy transition was that renewable energy needed to become ...
    2 weeks ago
  • Life at 20 kilometres an hour
    We are still in France, getting from A to B.Possibly for only another week, though; Switzerland and Germany are looming now. On we pedal, towards Budapest, at about 20 km per hour.What are are mostly doing is inhaling a country, loving its ways and its food. Rolling, talking, quietly thinking. ...
    More Than A FeildingBy David Slack
    2 weeks ago

  • Reserve Bank chair reappointed
    Professor Neil Quigley has been reappointed as Chair of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Board for a further term of two years, until 30 June 2026.  “Professor Quigley has played a key role in establishing the new Board after the commencement of the new RBNZ Act on 1 July ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • School attendance increases
    School attendance data released today shows an increase in the number of students regularly attending school to 61.7 per cent in term one. This compares to 59.5 per cent in term one last year and 53.6 per cent in term four. “It is encouraging to see more children getting to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Record investment in public transport services
    The Government has announced a record 41 per cent increase in indicative funding for public transport services and operations, and confirmed the rollout of the National Ticketing Solution (NTS) that will enable contactless debit and credit card payments starting this year in Auckland, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says.“This Government is ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • GDP data shows need to strengthen and grow the economy
    GDP figures for the March quarter reinforce the importance of restoring fiscal discipline to public spending and driving more economic growth, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says.  Data released today by Stats NZ shows GDP has risen 0.2 per cent for the quarter to March.   “While today’s data is technically in ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Women continue to make up over 50 per cent on public sector boards
    Women’s representation on public sector boards and committees has reached 50 per cent or above for the fourth consecutive year, with women holding 53.9 per cent of public sector board roles, Acting Minister for Women Louise Upston says. “This is a fantastic achievement, but the work is not done. To ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Government supporting Māori business success
    The Coalition Government is supporting Māori to boost development and the Māori economy through investment in projects that benefit the regions, Regional Development Minister Shane Jones and Māori Development Minister Tama Potaka say. “As the Regional Development Minister, I am focused on supporting Māori to succeed. The Provincial Growth Fund ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Better solutions for earthquake-prone buildings
    Building and Construction Minister Chris Penk has announced that the review into better managing the risks of earthquake-prone buildings has commenced. “The terms of reference published today demonstrate the Government’s commitment to ensuring we get the balance right between public safety and costs to building owners,” Mr Penk says.  “The Government ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Prime Minister wraps up visit to Japan
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has just finished a successful three-day visit to Japan, where he strengthened political relationships and boosted business links. Mr Luxon’s visit culminated in a bilateral meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Kishida Fumio followed by a state dinner. “It was important for me to meet Prime Minister Kishida in person ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    4 days ago
  • Major business deals signed on PM’s Japan trip
    Significant business deals have been closed during the visit of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon to Japan this week, including in the areas of space, renewable energy and investment.  “Commercial deals like this demonstrate that we don’t just export high-quality agricultural products to Japan, but also our world-class technology, expertise, and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Strategic Security speech, Tokyo
    Minasan, konnichiwa, kia ora and good afternoon everyone. Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today and thank you to our friends at the Institute for International Socio-Economic Studies and NEC for making this event possible today.  It gives me great pleasure to be here today, speaking with ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • National Infrastructure Pipeline worth over $120 billion
    The National Infrastructure Pipeline, which provides a national view of current or planned infrastructure projects, from roads, to water infrastructure, to schools, and more, has climbed above $120 billion, Infrastructure Minister Chris Bishop says. “Our Government is investing a record amount in modern infrastructure that Kiwis can rely on as ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    5 days ago
  • Making it easier to build infrastructure
    The Government is modernising the Public Works Act to make it easier to build infrastructure, Minister for Land Information Chris Penk announced today. An independent panel will undertake an eight-week review of the Act and advise on common sense changes to enable large scale public works to be built faster and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • NZ enhances North Korea sanctions monitoring
    New Zealand will enhance its defence contributions to monitoring violations of sanctions against North Korea, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon announced today.  The enhancement will see the New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF) increase its contributions to North Korea sanctions monitoring, operating out of Japan. “This increase reflects the importance New Zealand ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Speech to Safeguard National Health and Safety Conference
    Good afternoon everyone. It’s great to be with you all today before we wrap up Day One of the annual Safeguard National Health and Safety Conference. Thank you to the organisers and sponsors of this conference, for the chance to talk to you about the upcoming health and safety consultation. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Ōtaki to north of Levin alliance agreements signed
    Transport Minister Simeon Brown has welcomed an important milestone for the Ōtaki to north of Levin Road of National Significance (RoNS), following the NZ Transport Agency (NZTA) signing interim alliance agreements with two design and construction teams who will develop and ultimately build the new expressway.“The Government’s priority for transport ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Improvements to stopping Digital Child Exploitation
    The Department of Internal Affairs [Department] is making a significant upgrade to their Digital Child Exploitation Filtering System, which blocks access to websites known to host child sexual abuse material, says Minister of Internal Affairs Brooke van Velden.  “The Department will incorporate the up-to-date lists of websites hosting child sexual ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • New vaccine research aims to combat prevalent bovine disease
    A vaccine to prevent an infectious disease that costs New Zealand cattle farmers more than $190 million each year could radically improve the health of our cows and boost on-farm productivity, Associate Agriculture Minister Andrew Hoggard says. The Ministry for Primary Industries is backing a project that aims to develop ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    6 days ago
  • Making it easier to build granny flats
    The Government has today announced that it is making it easier for people to build granny flats, Acting Prime Minister Winston Peters and RMA Reform Minister Chris Bishop say. “Making it easier to build granny flats will make it more affordable for families to live the way that suits them ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    7 days ago
  • High Court Judge appointed
    Attorney-General Judith Collins today announced the appointment of Auckland King’s Counsel Gregory Peter Blanchard as a High Court Judge. Justice Blanchard attended the University of Auckland from 1991 to 1995, graduating with an LLB (Honours) and Bachelor of Arts (English). He was a solicitor with the firm that is now Dentons ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Health workforce numbers rise
    Health Minister Dr Shane Reti says new data released today shows encouraging growth in the health workforce, with a continued increase in the numbers of doctors, nurses and midwives joining Health New Zealand. “Frontline healthcare workers are the beating heart of the healthcare system. Increasing and retaining our health workforce ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government to overhaul firearms laws
    Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee has today announced a comprehensive programme to reform New Zealand's outdated and complicated firearms laws. “The Arms Act has been in place for over 40 years. It has been amended several times – in a piecemeal, and sometimes rushed way. This has resulted in outdated ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government delivers landmark specialist schools investment
    The coalition Government is delivering record levels of targeted investment in specialist schools so children with additional needs can thrive. As part of Budget 24, $89 million has been ringfenced to redevelop specialist facilities and increase satellite classrooms for students with high needs. This includes: $63 million in depreciation funding ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Major health and safety consultation begins
    A substantial consultation on work health and safety will begin today with a roadshow across the regions over the coming months, says Workplace Relations and Safety Minister Brooke van Velden.  This the first step to deliver on the commitment to reforming health and safety law and regulations, set out in ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Growing the potential of New Zealand’s forestry sector in partnership
    Forestry Minister Todd McClay, today announced the start of the Government’s plan to restore certainty and confidence in the forestry and wood processing sector. “This government will drive investment to unlock the industry’s economic potential for growth,” Mr McClay says. “Forestry’s success is critical to rebuilding New Zealand’s economy, boosting ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government cancels forestry ETS annual service charges for 2023-24
    Annual service charges in the forestry Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will be cancelled for 2023/24, Forestry Minister Todd McClay says. “The sector has told me the costs imposed on forestry owners by the previous government were excessive and unreasonable and I agree,” Mr McClay says. “They have said that there ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Speech to the LGNZ Infrastructure Symposium
    Introduction Thank you for having me here today and welcome to Wellington, the home of the Hurricanes, the next Super Rugby champions. Infrastructure – the challenge This government has inherited a series of big challenges in infrastructure. I don’t need to tell an audience as smart as this one that ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    1 week ago
  • Government boosts Agriculture and food trade with China
    Trade and Agriculture Minister Todd McClay and Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard welcomed outcomes to boost agricultural and food trade between New Zealand and China. A number of documents were signed today at Government House that will improve the business environment between New Zealand and China, and help reduce barriers, including on infant formula ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • NZ and China launch Services Trade Negotiations
    Trade Minister Todd McClay, and China’s Commerce Minister Wang Wentao, today announced the official launch of Negotiations on Services Trade between the two countries.  “The Government is focused on opening doors for services exporters to grow the New Zealand’s economy,” Mr McClay says.  As part of the 2022 New Zealand-China Free Trade Agreement Upgrade ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Prime Minister Luxon meets with Premier Li
    Prime Minister Christopher Luxon met with Chinese Premier Li Qiang at Government House in Wellington today.  “I was pleased to welcome Premier Li to Wellington for his first official visit, which marks 10 years since New Zealand and China established a Comprehensive Strategic Partnership,” Mr Luxon says. “The Premier and ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Government and business tackling gender pay gap
    The coalition Government is taking action to reduce the gender pay gap in New Zealand through the development of a voluntary calculation tool. “Gender pay gaps have impacted women for decades, which is why we need to continue to drive change in New Zealand,” Acting Minister for Women Louise Upston ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Funding Boost for Rural Support Trusts
    The coalition Government is boosting funding for Rural Support Trusts to provide more help to farmers and growers under pressure, Rural Communities Minister Mark Patterson announced today. “A strong and thriving agricultural sector is crucial to the New Zealand economy and one of the ways to support it is to ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Latest data shows size of public service decreasing
    Spending on contractors and consultants continues to fall and the size of the Public Service workforce has started to decrease after years of growth, according to the latest data released today by the Public Service Commission. Workforce data for the quarter from 31 December 23 to 31 March 24 shows ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Speech to the Law Association
    Thank you to the Law Association for inviting me to speak this morning. As a former president under its previous name — the Auckland District Law Society — I take particular satisfaction in seeing this organisation, and its members, in such good heart. As Attorney-General, I am grateful for these ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • 25 years on, NZ reaffirms enduring friendship with Timor Leste
    New Zealand is committed to working closely with Timor-Leste to support its prosperity and resilience, Foreign Minister Winston Peters says.   “This year is the 25th anniversary of New Zealand sending peacekeepers to Timor-Leste, who contributed to the country’s stabilisation and ultimately its independence,” Mr Peters says.    “A quarter ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Inquiry requested into rural banking
    Promoting robust competition in the banking sector is vital to rebuilding the economy, Finance Minister Nicola Willis says.  “New Zealanders deserve a banking sector that is as competitive as possible. Banking services play an important role in our communities and in the economy. Kiwis rely on access to lending when ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Ministry for Regulation targets red tape to keep farmers and growers competitive
    Regulation Minister David Seymour, Environment Minister Penny Simmonds, and Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard have today announced a regulatory sector review on the approval process for new agricultural and horticultural products.    “Red tape stops farmers and growers from getting access to products that have been approved by other OECD countries. ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Government to reverse blanket speed limit reductions
    The Coalition Government will reverse Labour’s blanket speed limit reductions by 1 July 2025 through a new Land Transport Rule released for public consultation today, Transport Minister Simeon Brown says.  The draft speed limit rule will deliver on the National-ACT coalition commitment to reverse the previous government’s blanket speed limit ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Chair appointments for NZSO, CNZ and NZ On Air
    Minister Paul Goldsmith is making major leadership changes within both his Arts and Media portfolios. “I am delighted to announce Carmel Walsh will be officially stepping into the role of Chair of the New Zealand Symphony Orchestra, having been acting Chair since April,” Arts Minister Paul Goldsmith says.  “Carmel is ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Government focus on long-term food, fibre growth
    Food and fibre export revenue is tipped to reach $54.6 billion this year and hit a record $66.6b in 2028 as the Government focuses on getting better access to markets and cutting red tape, Agriculture Minister Todd McClay and Oceans and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones say. “This achievement is testament ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago
  • Govt consulting on cutting red tape for exporters
    A new export exemption proposal for food businesses demonstrates the coalition Government’s commitment to reducing regulatory barriers for industry and increasing the value of New Zealand exports, which gets safe New Zealand food to more markets, says Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard.  “The coalition Government has listened to the concerns ...
    BeehiveBy beehive.govt.nz
    2 weeks ago

Page generated in The Standard by Wordpress at 2024-06-23T20:26:32+00:00