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

Written By: - Date published: 9:33 am, October 8th, 2015 - 25 comments
Categories: climate change, Environment, ETS, global warming, national, same old national - Tags:

 

Renee Rose Annan

The Paris Climate Change Conference is an important gathering of human beings in the face of the biggest crisis humanity has ever faced.

Some think it is too late and civilisation is stuffed, others think that without immediate corrective action civilisation is doomed, a third group think that there is nothing to worry about because of sunspots and hockey sticks and a fourth group do not care as long as they can drive their Ferrari to work each day.

Greenpeace350 Aotearoa and the Coal Action Network want the Government to not send Tim Groser to Paris to represent Aotearoa New Zealand.  The chances of them succeeding are unfortunately slim.  To balance things we need to make sure that we have alternative representation there.

Young, female, future looking; someone who believes in climate change and understands the need for urgent and just action, someone who sees the opportunites of reducing our emissions. In other words the complete opposite to Groser.

A young Auckland Green, Renée Rose Annan, wants to travel to Paris for the convention. But she has a problem. She does not have government sponsored travel and an unlimited minibar tab to pay for the experience. She is fundraising so that she can make the trip.

I met her when she was very competently handling the social media for the Paturoa Kauri and I am sure that she will make a difference.

If you want to contribute to Renée’s travel and accommodation costs then you can do so through this givealittle page.

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

  1. mickysavage 2

    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.

  2. johnm 3

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

    • red-blooded 3.1

      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

        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?

  3. esoteric pineapples 4

    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

  4. Bill 5

    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

      Can’t disagree with you on that Bill.

    • left for deadshark 5.2

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

      • mickysavage 5.2.1

        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

          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

          “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

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

  5. ICD 6

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

    • mickysavage 6.1

      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

        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

          “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

            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

              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

              “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

                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

                  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

                    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

                      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.

                    • 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

Recent Comments

Recent Posts