Let’s send Renée Rose Annan to Paris to counter Tim Groser

25 comments on “Let’s send Renée Rose Annan to Paris to counter Tim Groser ”

• Comments are now closed

1. savenz 1

   8 October 2015 at 9:41 am

   +1
2. mickysavage 2

   8 October 2015 at 11:09 am

   There have already been a couple of very generous donations thank you very much.

   This could be a good experiment in terms of developing reliance on alternative reports of what is happening. The MSM is showing how it is increasingly unable to report on these sorts of issues and activist reporting is going to be very important.
3. johnm 3

   8 October 2015 at 11:35 am

   Definitely, this attractive young lady should go to Paris! 🙂 I hope wealthier readers of the standard can help out.
   • red-blooded 3.1

     8 October 2015 at 1:21 pm

     johnm, I hope you’re not implying that one reason she should go is that she’s “attractive”?

     Maybe you were meaning to comment on her character (I hope so), but that’s not how it came across. There are plenty of good reasons to support Renée Rose Annan in getting to Paris, but I don’t see how being attractive is relevant. Women have been assessed on the basis of their looks for long enough.
     • David 3.1.1

       8 October 2015 at 2:52 pm

       If ‘young’ ‘future looking’ and ‘female’ are noteworthy characteristics, why not ‘attractive’? I hope it’s not implying the reason she should go is that she is female, or young?
4. esoteric pineapples 4

   8 October 2015 at 12:20 pm

   Giving a donation to anything that throws a spanner in the works for this government, helps good causes etc, is one of life’s small pleasures
5. Bill 5

   8 October 2015 at 5:12 pm

   Let’s send…let’s not. Let’s get the ball rolling on not carrying on the way we are. Let’s suggest to Greenpeace, 350.org and all the rest of them that they begin garnering support to lock down air-ports and stop anyone flying anywhere instead of them joining in with and endorsing the international ‘fly by’ conference circuit.

   All of these conferences could and should be conducted with the use of modern communications technologies for those from far away…
   • tinfoilhat 5.1

     8 October 2015 at 5:25 pm

     Can’t disagree with you on that Bill.
   • left for deadshark 5.2

     8 October 2015 at 5:32 pm

     Afraid I’m with Bill on this one also. 👿
     • mickysavage 5.2.1

       8 October 2015 at 9:43 pm

       The carbon cost of flying someone to Paris is 7.8 tonnes which will cost £117.00 to offset. Lets increase the fundraising and make sure the surplus is put into growing forests.
       • Bill 5.2.1.1

         8 October 2015 at 10:11 pm

         There is no ‘off-set’ when we’re dealing with cumulative emissions. It’s not difficult to envisage situations where off -setting actually increases emissions.

         http://www.nature.com/news/the-inconvenient-truth-of-carbon-offsets-1.10373

         And the one off flight is less of an issue than the profligate carbon use that the lifestyle underpinned by easy travel encourages…the crucial conference/need to catch up with dying relative/ holiday/weekend shopping trip in Sydney/ business expo…etc, etc, etc
       • weka 5.2.1.2

         8 October 2015 at 10:16 pm

         “The carbon cost of flying someone to Paris is 7.8 tonnes which will cost £117.00 to offset. Lets increase the fundraising and make sure the surplus is put into growing forests”

         Polluter pays doesn’t work with AGW because we are so far in debt that we need the tree planting etc to make up for the damage already done not extra damage that we should be avoiding at all costs.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 5.3

     8 October 2015 at 5:40 pm

     In light of recent entirely predictable revelations from Exxon, the appropriate response is to send Interpol to round up the lobbyists.
6. ICD 6

   8 October 2015 at 9:06 pm

   Great idea. Let’s fly halfway around the world to combat…? Oops. Hypocrite much?
   • mickysavage 6.1

     8 October 2015 at 9:39 pm

     Or sit at home and let the corporates do it all? These conferences are incredibly important. Having people with progressive ideas present is vitally important.
     • Bill 6.1.1

       8 October 2015 at 10:02 pm

       All the hard headed scientists and all the well meaning NGOs and their accompanying carbon footprint have made not one iota of difference to any climate conference thus far.

       Maybe you’re missing the central issue – that combating climate change is utterly inimical to modern modes of production and distribution?

       No NGO or scientist is going to be allowed to table (not in any serious fashion) any heretical need for fundamental change.

       Unfortunately, unlike most scientists in the CC field, many young activists are merely looking for ‘brownie points’ on their CV (for future use) and retain a certain naivety of youth that would have them believe the ‘right thing’ will be done by the powerful by and by…and that when that’s done, things can carry on much as now.

       The conferences aren’t important beyond their capacity to generate propaganda for the frog in the steadily warming water.
       • weka 6.1.1.1

         8 October 2015 at 10:19 pm

         “Unfortunately, unlike most scientists in the CC field, many young activists are merely looking for ‘brownie points’ on their CV (for future use) and retain a certain naivety of youth that would have them believe the ‘right thing’ will be done by the powerful by and by…and that when that’s done, things can carry on much as now.”

         Hmm, that’s pretty cynical re the CV and we don’t know if Annan believes in the powerful or BAU.

         I agree re the whole flying thing, but I don’t think that the youth delegation, or the scientists/NGOs etc are a complete waste of time either. If people like Annan didn’t go, it’d be left up to people like Groser.
         • Bill 6.1.1.1.1

           8 October 2015 at 10:28 pm

           No. I have no idea what Rennee’s head space is. That’s why I used the term ‘many’.

           The Groser’s are running on a different agenda (completely different priorities) to both the scientists and whatever delegations may turn up. They will not (have not) allowed their agenda to be impinged upon.

           Leave it to the Groser’s. But politically lock them down; lock them out – so that they and their deliberations are of no more real world impact than this conversation we are having here.

           -sigh- the utterly necessary revolution ‘most’ (okay – I actually think ‘all’ – and by definition in this instance) social democrats recoil from 😉
           • Colonial Viper 6.1.1.1.1.1

             8 October 2015 at 10:43 pm

             And regardless, there is going to be revolutionary change of one sort or another this century. Even if as a civilisation we do not pro-actively set the menu, sooner or later nature will sit us down to a feast of consequences.
           • weka 6.1.1.1.1.2

             8 October 2015 at 10:48 pm

             “No. I have no idea what Rennee’s head space is. That’s why I used the term ‘many’.”

             Sure, but the implication was that her going migh be a waste of time and/or tied into personal politcal failings on her part. I am quite curious now where her politics are at.

             “They will not (have not) allowed their agenda to be impinged upon.”

             If that were true they wouldn’t be having to go to a conference at all, there would be no conversations about AGW.

             I’m up for the revolution. I don’t see how Annan choosing to not fly will work towards that. Obviously it’s a prerequisite that people stop flying, but stopping flying alone won’t have much affect on locking out the Grosers of the world ie I think the critique was wrongly applied. Yes, if she didn’t go and there was a movement to lock out the Grosers, then it would make sense. But given there isn’t I think it’s more about whether her going will make enough of a difference to justify the flying (I tend to think not, but for other reasons). The question then becomes, how do we raise consciousness in these young ‘uns ;-), or more importantly, the oldies with the money, power, clout?

             No idea if she’s a social democrat 😉
             • Bill …

               8 October 2015 at 11:08 pm

               Yes, if she didn’t go and there was a movement to lock out the Grosers, then it would make sense.

               That’s my point….It needs to be brought into existence – a new norm. It should be utterly unthinkable that we carry on living the way we do. And anyone who advocates it ought to be marginalised, ignored and ridiculed instead of being elevated to positions of leadership…

               edit: sorry, some time has elapsed, but…of course they’d be having conferences! Leaders have to make a show of being in control and, well…there’s all those frogs to be placated that might get hopping mad if it ever got out that things weren’t ‘cool’.
               • weka …

                 8 October 2015 at 11:27 pm

                 yeah, but you were saying that there’s been no progress and that the Grosers are carrying on unheeded. I think that’s untrue. If people like Annan weren’t working the Grosers would be getting away with much more.

                 “That’s my point….It needs to be brought into existence – a new norm. It should be utterly unthinkable that we carry on living the way we do. And anyone who advocates it ought to be marginalised, ignored and ridiculed instead of being elevated to positions of leadership…”

                 Fair enough. One of us should write a post 🙂

                 I had a look at the youth delegation website and am somewhat more inclined to your cynicism. They are promoting zero by 2050 but it’s pretty light on detail.
                 • Bill …

                   9 October 2015 at 12:12 am

                   I can’t see any progress.

                   In 1992 at the Rio Summit, governments made some signals to bring emissions down. Emissions rose. in (how many?) subsequent ‘talk fests’ governments made commitments of various degrees – and emissions continued to rise. Today, emissions are rising.

                   Sure, we’ve got windmills and what not where before we only had hydro. It’s kinda like we’re putting filters on cigarettes while increasing tobacco use – it ain’t going anywhere other than bad.

                   Oh – I forgot, like the cure for cancer is just around the corner, meaning we could smoke to our heart’s content, we’ve got carbon capture and storage technology….just around the corner.
                   • weka …

                     9 October 2015 at 9:30 am

                     Off the top of my head the biggest difference between 1992 and 2015 is that most people now know that climate change is real, serious and in NZ at least, want something done about it. That’s not no progress. The kind of progress you are talking about can’t happen without that.

                     It’s not like the Grosers of the world made that change happen. Others did, including people like Annan (or her counterpart at the time).

                     Other differences are how science is funded, MSM coverage etc.
                   • Robert Atack …

                     10 October 2015 at 5:21 pm

                     is that most people now know that climate change is real

                     Yeah right, ‘we’ are still buying new cars like there is no tomorrow (100 into Masterton last week) And Napier seams to be moving a few as well?

                     ‘most people’ will not vote for or accept any real action on ACC, not that there is anything to do, but just for arguments sake 😉

                     ‘most people’ are saying steady as she goes, don’t rock the boat, put a car/holiday/whatever on the mortgage, just like 2007-8 again.

                     ‘most people’ might think we can do something about CC, that will not affect their Kiwi Saver investments, and a lot of those people vote Green, or are Green politicians.

                     The fact that the ‘most people’ vote in the Greens shows ‘most people’ haven’t a fucking clue.

                     Where are the ‘most people’ when we are told our over populated island just had another 86,000 soles added to it?

                     Oh and ‘most people’ want to keep having babies

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS