Maybe stop dropping it…

151 comments on “Maybe stop dropping it… ”

• Comments are now closed

1. gsays 1

   2 May 2016 at 11:45 am

   I had a rare beast in my house yesty, a cc denier!
   He claims the regular heating/cooling cycle is caused by the earths core
   Not to worry because trees are adapting to take on way more carbon.
   face palm.
   I moved the conversation on to the cricket team.
   • TC 1.1

     2 May 2016 at 11:59 am

     Some luddites have gone from denial to denying that its caused by man but wow thats a beauty that line about the core.
     • Pat 1.1.1

       2 May 2016 at 7:07 pm

       strangely enough if the world were indeed full of Luddites we wouldn’t be having this conversation…..another descriptive term may be more appropriate.
   • Lanthanide 1.2

     2 May 2016 at 12:39 pm

     There was an article published in the last week or so that found that plants are becoming more efficient with their use of water, due to increased CO2 availability in the atmosphere.

     That may be the nucleus of the “trees are adapting” part. No idea where they got the “core is doing it” part though.
     • lprent 1.2.1

       2 May 2016 at 3:04 pm

       Probably because the slow fission nuclear reactor that we live on is hot at the core?

       Quite how they get from thinking that the type of heat insulated by the insulating cold rock at the surface gets through in quantities high enough to affect ephemeral heat stores like water and air is beyond me. Especially when that extra heat doesn’t also poison the atmosphere with excessive sulphates and other the other noxious liquids and gases commonly associated with vulcanism.

       But hey, who knows what is in the alleged mind of an idiot denier. In my experience, certainly not much understanding of basic science or any demonstratable skills at being able to think rationally.
       • Poission 1.2.1.1

         2 May 2016 at 3:17 pm

         They are probably getting confused with the recent publication on geothermal heating under Greenland,

         http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-04/tuom-ghc040616.php

         Have not heard of any phase behavioral oscillations at short time scales,at longer periods it makes for an interesting proposition for periodic mass extinctions by dark matter,where mutual annihilation by interaction would increase the T of the earth core.

         http://mnras.oxfordjournals.org/content/448/2/1816
         • lprent 1.2.1.1.1

           2 May 2016 at 11:54 pm

           FFS: there is a hell of a lot of seismic activity between Greenland and Canada. Maybe the Greenland plate is still partially active pushing over a subduction zone. Maybe active glacial rebound.

           Either way, these are processes that take millions of years.
       • Jones 1.2.1.2

         2 May 2016 at 4:38 pm

         And here I was thinking the Earth was hollow… 😉
       • Jenny 1.2.1.3

         2 May 2016 at 7:41 pm

         What nuclear reactor?

         The small number of anti-neutrinos detected at Borexino, only a couple each month, helps to settle a long-standing question among geophysicists and geologists about whether our planet harbors a huge, natural nuclear reactor at its core.

         Based on the unprecedently clear geo anti-neutrino data, the answer is no, say the UMass Amherst physicists.

         http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/02/update-does-the-earth-harbors-a-huge-natural-nuclear-reactor-at-its-core.html

         Another denier argument bites the dirt, literally.
         • lprent 1.2.1.3.1

           3 May 2016 at 12:02 am

           Look the emissions of Argon. Then figure out what reactions cause that. Heat from nuclear decay isn’t a high grade nuclear reaction, but with large amounts of rock insulation it accumulated a lot of heat.

           Still a nuclear reactor.
           • Colonial Viper 1.2.1.3.1.1

             3 May 2016 at 1:28 am

             like smoke alarms are nuclear powered?
           • Lanthanide 1.2.1.3.1.2

             3 May 2016 at 9:35 am

             I don’t really think natural radioactive decay counts as being a ‘nuclear reactor’.

             Edit: Wikipedia defines a nuclear reaction as two atoms combining together. Nuclear decay happens when a single atom splits apart.

             So by that definition, nuclear decay is not a nuclear reactor.
             • lprent …

               3 May 2016 at 1:02 pm

               So by that definition, nuclear decay is not a nuclear reactor.

               By that definition, none of the nuclear power plants are nuclear reactors either. They are fission reactors where particles fall apart either through induced decay due to neutrons in a chain reaction or through simple decay. Both release radiation which causes heat.

               What you are describing are fusion reactions, which as the name implies, is where atoms fuse.

               https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reactor#Fission

               The decay chain on U238 are (excluding most of the smaller atoms) :-
               https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-238#Radioactivity_and_decay

               These don’t just happen in and under the mantle, there is at least one surviving case of a natural surface or near surface natural nuclear reactor.

               https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor
               • Lanthanide …

                 3 May 2016 at 1:20 pm

                 Sorry, I badly paraphrased what Wikipedia said.

                 Here’s the quote:

                 In nuclear physics and nuclear chemistry, a nuclear reaction is semantically considered to be the process in which two nuclei, or else a nucleus of an atom and a subatomic particle (such as a proton, neutron, or high energy electron) from outside the atom, collide to produce one or more nuclides that are different from the nuclide(s) that began the process. Thus, a nuclear reaction must cause a transformation of at least one nuclide to another.

                 My paraphrase above would be limited to fusion, but clearly the actual quote from Wikipedia includes fission.

                 Fission reactions smash these particles together, with the deliberate intention that one of the resultant products will be of lower mass than the combined nuclides, with the missing mass released as heat energy.

                 So a nuclear reaction is only the combining part – it doesn’t have anything to do with the decay. A nuclear reactor is something that makes the combination occur initially – in our power plants, there is also nuclear decay which contributes to the heat generated as well.

                 In nature, the combination part doesn’t occur, except as you noted in that one particular circumstance where everything lined up just right geologically.
     • The lost sheep 1.2.2

       3 May 2016 at 7:18 am

       ‘From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.’

       http://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
       http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3004.html
   • NZJester 1.3

     2 May 2016 at 5:27 pm

     Maybe trees would be able to adapt to take on more carbon. I doubt we will ever know for sure due to the fact we are loosing more trees every day due to illegal logging than any mutation that might evolve in the trees to take up that extra carbon would be able to compensate for. The remaining trees would have to start taking in a hell of a lot more carbon than they do now. But unfortunately tree growth is very slow and any mutations that might arise would be slow to appear also. Provided they are not illegally logged in the meantime before any extra carbon uptake tree mutation can spread.
   • Peter 1.4

     2 May 2016 at 6:18 pm

     Is he also religious and believes the Earth is only 6 thousand years old.
     • gsays 1.4.1

       3 May 2016 at 1:12 am

       As it turns out , yes.
       Ironically his name is peter.
   • Tricledrown 1.5

     2 May 2016 at 10:20 pm

     That’s because he was a useless tosser.
   • Tricledrown 1.6

     2 May 2016 at 10:20 pm

     That’s because he was a useless tosser.
2. adam 2

   2 May 2016 at 12:02 pm

   But Bill, it’s more fun to attack Key, moan about house prices, decry about tax, follow the super rugby, kid yourself labour is doing well, and most of all – laugh at the radicals.

   It’s not real, until it’s real.

   In other words, until something rather bad happens in Auckland, this is an issue which will be ignored.
   • weka 2.1

     2 May 2016 at 12:36 pm

     I was thinking that too, the sheer volume of coverage of the Panama papers and at home scandals, meanwhile Rome is burning.

     Myself, I’m scared. Far more scared than of something as puny and transient as neoliberalism.

     And Gen Y is worrying about whether they’ll get to own a home and save for their retirement ;-/
     • adam 2.1.1

       2 May 2016 at 12:46 pm

       I suppose they won’t have to worry about retirement, with a 4 degrees temperature rise.

       I think I’ve said it before we seem to be in a age when there is no leadership, and no hope, and no desire to save ourselves as a species. When all it takes is for the privileged to take a hit on their luxury. And before the “you are just envious” crowed rush in to add their two cents, that means me too sunshine.

       That said, I think it is the likes of Whale oil, and company with their wholesale cynicism, and 24 hour negativity, have had an impact.

       To Quote Dostoyevsky

       “Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect, he ceases to love.”
       • weka 2.1.1.1

         2 May 2016 at 1:21 pm

         Most people want more action on climate change. Bugger the bastards who are agin us, there are plenty who are for the planet if they can find the way.

         Lack of leadership is an asset 😉 It leaves a vacuum into which the people can step.
         • adam 2.1.1.1.1

           2 May 2016 at 3:39 pm

           It’s 25 degrees in Auckland at the moment. Washing is dry. It feels like a cool summers day, humid as.

           I’d like to see lots of leaders on this issue. Because there are so many things that need to get done. No one leader, as that just won’t work.
       • NZJester 2.1.1.2

         2 May 2016 at 5:36 pm

         Above all, don’t lie to yourself. The man who lies to himself and listens to his own lie comes to a point that he cannot distinguish the truth within him, or around him, and so loses all respect for himself and for others. And having no respect, he ceases to love.

         That Dostoyevsky description fits people like Whaleoil to a T.
3. Lanthanide 3

   2 May 2016 at 12:36 pm

   Sure, we could all do “something”, but can any of us do what is required?

   In fact, can all of us do what is required?
   • Sabine 3.1

     2 May 2016 at 12:44 pm

     the whole lot of us needs to do what is required.
     Walk, not drive.
     live in smaller houses not larger ones.
     only flush if you must
     grow your own food
     plant trees, often and everywhere
     remove concrete and let weeds grow

     etc etc etc

     but none of these things is sexy to those who have hitched their ‘sex appeal’ to a large 5 bedder with 4.5 bathrooms and a car the size of a nuclear submarine.
     And above all we, the elders, must teach the youngers our skills in making things, how to make clothes, how to make shoes, how to preserve food, before all this knowledge and expertise goes the way of the dodo and is buried with us.

     The planet will survive, it is us that will not if we don’t start adapting to the future.
     • Bill 3.1.1

       2 May 2016 at 1:25 pm

       Yup. Can I add that civil society probably needs to rise up and take away the carbon rich pathway to privilege that policy makers, politicians, academics, business leaders, entrepreneurs etc utilise?

       I’m pretty sure that you and I and many others are already ahead of the curve on ‘doing what is required’ (though we’re probably labouring as individuals and haven’t yet been able to take those things to an effective community based level), while those that are causing most of the damage view themselves as special cases or as exceptions and so carry on in the same tired old way while seeking to ensure that tired old way is preserved.

       eg – neither the policy maker nor the politician is going to enact stuff that stops the climate change scientist jetting off to some developing nation to attend a conference or whatever.
       • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1

         2 May 2016 at 8:11 pm

         Yup. Can I add that civil society probably needs to rise up and take away the carbon rich pathway to privilege that policy makers, politicians, academics, business leaders, entrepreneurs etc utilise?

         Those people that you list make up a large chunk of so-called “civil society.” Also professionals, landlords, shopkeepers, local government bureaucrats, and the list goes on
     • Colonial Viper 3.1.2

       2 May 2016 at 7:49 pm

       live in smaller houses not larger ones.

       Mate of mine builds a lot of houses in Christchurch.

       Lately they have all been 300m2 to 400m2 floor space.

       Yep, that’s floor space, not section size. His entire calendar this year is full of these.
       • weka 3.1.2.1

         2 May 2016 at 8:12 pm

         You can make more money of the resale of a bigger house. I’m hearing that banks are refusing mortgages to people who want to build smaller homes. I’m guessing that they too understand that if they end up having to sell the house they’ll get more from a larger one. Which probably tells us where the banks think this is going.
         • greywarshark 3.1.2.1.1

           2 May 2016 at 10:09 pm

           Okay say there is a bias for larger homes. Let a small not for profit group start an organisaton called Clan Couples or the like. This meets socially once a month with young people trying to get a home. They hear about the housing situation and get the info they need. They make friends, learn about each other, and then may decide to combine savings to jointly build a home for themselves as joint partners or the like.

           The house becomes two apartments, perhaps built mews style with the front door opening onto a wide hallway where bikes are stored, and two doors lead to the ground floor rooms and upstairs are the bedrooms separated by a concrete/firewall. Various versions would be designed by some of these young people. Whatever was necessary to obtain permits and loans would be in the plan, perhaps sprinklers on the ground floor and stairs. There would be a model legal framework with a few options to suit cases.

           Trying to do things completely yourselves has become difficult at this time. Getting together would be a good idea. In future years a family might live in one side, with the other being a granny flat with a spare bedroom for family overflow at holidays.
           • weka 3.1.2.1.1.1

             2 May 2016 at 11:34 pm

             Yes! And larger houses are conducive to working from home, so being creative around how people can make a living without travelling so much.
     • JonL 3.1.3

       3 May 2016 at 4:48 pm

       the whole lot of us needs to do what is required.

       Walk, not drive. – 15km to the nearest shops……take the electric pushbike I think
       live in smaller houses not larger ones………70 m2…..tick
       only flush if you must…….septic tank, rain water only and sometimes 2 months with no rain….tick
       grow your own food………where possible and wildlife allows….tick
       plant trees, often and everywhere……10 acres bought bare now with 45% maturing tree cover…..tick
       remove concrete and let weeds grow…….wife has 30 litres of Glyphosate left, 2 electric sprayers and an urge to spray bordering on the obsessive…..hmm might have problems with that one.
   • adam 3.2

     2 May 2016 at 1:10 pm

     I don’t think we all do. Just enough people to make it uneconomic for the rest.

     Also, like all BIG things/issues/problems. All we have to do is small steps ourselves. If we all just one thing a week to change our habits, by the end of the year – fundamental change would have happened.
   • McFlock 3.3

     2 May 2016 at 2:52 pm

     I’m not sure that individuals’ changes in lifestyle are going to do much to reduce the problem anymore.

     The only solution is a research program similar to the Apollo program in magnitude (or the B29 or Manhatten projects), probably concentrating on carbon sequestration of some sort.

     Industrial-scale problems need industrial-scale solutions.
     • Lanthanide 3.3.1

       2 May 2016 at 3:02 pm

       “I’m not sure that individuals’ changes in lifestyle are going to do much to reduce the problem anymore.”

       Well, they might. But no democratic country would seriously take the steps (or implement the laws to enforce them) necessary.
     • Bill 3.3.2

       2 May 2016 at 3:11 pm

       If the change is such that it calls into question the legitimacy of the socio/political systems of governance and privilege that thrive on the back of fossil use, then as long as enough people simultaneously move away from and challenge the relevant orthodoxies, then it can have a huge impact on the problem.

       Industrial scale problems only need industrial scale solutions if the idea is to leave power residing in its current place. And if we do that, we’re fucked. We can’t maintain doing the things we do and hope to ‘industrial fix’ ourselves out of climate change.

       And sure, throw everything we’ve got at carbon sequestration and what not, but meantime, we need to get real and stop doing what we’re doing. Develop ways of ‘moving beyond the light-bulb’ as it were. 😉
       • McFlock 3.3.2.1

         2 May 2016 at 3:20 pm

         Long term we either find a solution that can deal with the carbon we’ve dumped into the atmosphere and oceans, or we adapt around larger and more damaging weather events (which will be more expensive and regressive than finding a solution).

         The former would also incidentally deal with out current fossil fuel use, the latter would not be particularly affected by any change in personal habits.

         There are other good reasons to move away from carbon as an energy source, but the greenhouse horse has already bolted.
         • Bill 3.3.2.1.1

           2 May 2016 at 3:39 pm

           Hmm. We’re already using the promise of CCS as an excuse to continue doing what we do – so, “the former” that you propose, doesn’t necessarily deal with current fossil use. Actually, quite the contrary if we look at the evidence.

           Adapting to likely impacts ahead of time – first at an individual level, then at a community level and finally at an international level – absolutely demands we deal with current fossil use now and means we might only have to adapt to something like 3°C.

           Politicians, policy makers, the business community (big business) and some scientists are banking on a tech fix (CCS)…and if it doesn’t work (a likely outcome) , we’ll be facing temperatures of (I dunno) maybe 6°C…and we can’t adapt to that kind of temperature rise.
           • McFlock 3.3.2.1.1.1

             2 May 2016 at 3:55 pm

             IMO, factors other than AGW are the ones that will transition us away from fossil fuels – becoming more expensive to mine and more extensive clean-air policies, for example.

             But between the tundra and the ice-sheet lubrication, I’m not so sure we’re limited to 3C without some sort of tech hail-mary project, personal sacrifices or not.
         • Colonial Viper 3.3.2.1.2

           2 May 2016 at 7:00 pm

           Long term we either find a solution that can deal with the carbon we’ve dumped into the atmosphere and oceans, or we adapt around larger and more damaging weather events (which will be more expensive and regressive than finding a solution).

           I think our heading is pretty much already irrevocably set. Or it will be in the next 10 years or so.

           At this stage is a choice between things becoming horrifically bad for the young generation (the current under 20s), or things being merely terribly bad for them.

           As for future adaptation: I think a lot of people in modern countries will fall into utter despair/misery/death, and the security surveillance state will swing into full action to try and maintain the privileges of the 5%.
           • McFlock 3.3.2.1.2.1

             2 May 2016 at 7:25 pm

             ever the optimist
             • Pat …

               2 May 2016 at 7:36 pm

               actually i think that assessment is optimistic…..think about it.
               • McFlock …

                 2 May 2016 at 7:45 pm

                 It’s an “if these trends continue” position, though. Yes, if internationally we did absolutely nothing, it goes all Mad Max (to greater or lesser degrees). But sooner or later the problem will be evident to even the biggest idiot, and governments will throw money at the problem. Whether that’s too late to actually fix the problem before e.g. pakistan/india nuclear exchange is the issue of doubt for me, but as soon as the commitment is there, I reckon we’ll take the step to active climate management.
                 • weka …

                   2 May 2016 at 8:15 pm

                   The big problem, really the very seriously big problem with that is that we have a window of opportunity to change before we are locked into catastrophic climate change. If we wait until we are forced to change we run the very risk and high risk of it being too late. I don’t think we are there yet, but I can’t see any good reason not to change radically now.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     2 May 2016 at 8:36 pm

                     I don’t think we are there yet, but I can’t see any good reason not to change radically now.

                     Not that it’s a “good reason” but the people with power and wealth don’t want to give up the things which give them their power and wealth.
                   • maui …

                     2 May 2016 at 8:36 pm

                     We’re not going to radically alter emissions under the current system of endless growth, endless debt, endless capitalism. The whole system has to break or a new system has to takeover the current one for things to change in a big way. Climate change is one symptom of our economic status quo. So something big has to happen to that system for us to properly address Climate I reckon.
                   • McFlock …

                     2 May 2016 at 9:32 pm

                     Here’s the thing: we are already in catastrophic climate change. As time progresses, the catastrophes will get worse and the chances of sparking even more and more serious conflicts increase.

                     And the Siberian sinkholes suggest we’re over the tipping point.

                     And we’re not going to change radically without radical investment in not just carbon alternatives but in actually reversing the situation.

                     It’s never too late, but the longer it takes then the more effort is required. And I’m talking CERN-level projects, not changing to a camomile lawn.
                   • weka …

                     2 May 2016 at 11:19 pm

                     Not that it’s a “good reason” but the people with power and wealth don’t want to give up the things which give them their power and wealth.

                     They’re not going to have a choice. And I’m not willing to let the idea that it’s up to the rich and wealthy to change first stop the rest of us from changing now.
                   • weka …

                     2 May 2016 at 11:37 pm

                     McFlock, the advantage of a chamomile lawn over a CERN project is that the chamomile lawn* has negative carbon emissions vs the CERN project which requires mass carbon emitting infrastructure to even exist.

                     *well maybe not a lawn, but a polyculture food forest.

                     The carbon farming dudes reckon they can sequester the kinds of levels of carbon you are talking about.
                   • McFlock …

                     3 May 2016 at 1:24 pm

                     “CERN-level”. A particle collider isn’t going to (directly) address AGW (although it can help analyse the problem with basic science).

                     One and a half billion dollars annually might help directly, though. The $25 billion total Apollo cost would be similarly helpful (and that total cost estimate was in 1973 USD).

                     Carbon farmers might reckon they can, but they still ain’t. To turn “can” into “do” requires investment in this day and age.
                   • weka …

                     3 May 2016 at 1:31 pm

                     The beautiful thing about carbon farming is that if they are right about how much carbon they are already* sequestering, then massive numbers of farmers world wide can convert to their systems with very little tech being needed.

                     Someone just needs to do the science to see if they are right and then convince the mainstream to do it.

                     *in other words, the techniques are already available to us.
                   • Pat …

                     3 May 2016 at 1:51 pm

                     https://www.quora.com/How-many-trees-would-it-take-to-reverse-climate-change…… Im all for planting trees….i have planted a couple of hundred in the past few years myself, but it isn’t a solution
                   • weka …

                     3 May 2016 at 2:51 pm

                     Carbon farming isn’t treee planting.

                     Tree planting is a solution. I agree it’s not a silver bullet, but it is one of hte things we should be doing massively.
                   • Pat …

                     3 May 2016 at 3:50 pm

                     http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/29/carbon-farming-its-a-nice-theory-but-dont-get-your-hopes-up
                   • Pat …

                     3 May 2016 at 4:08 pm

                     “Carbon farming isn’t treee planting.”

                     not in its entirety however the bulk of the professed carbon sequestration is in tree planting.
                   • weka …

                     3 May 2016 at 7:43 pm

                     I think the term gets used by two pretty distinct groups. The mainstream one which is looking at how to make money out of carbon credits, and the one that is doing actual regenerative agriculture.

                     (your link doesn’t appear to detail what kind of farming they are referring to but it doesn’t sound like regenag).

                     Regenag means no ploughing (ploughing releases carbon and is destructive to the soil ecologies that sequester carbon). Some of the more mainstream carbon farming experiments involve plouging crop waste back into the soil. This limits fertility and carbon build up.

                     The classic example of regenag comes from Joel Salatin, whose family rebuilt 12 inches of soil over rock in the last 50 years,

                     http://transitionvoice.com/2012/07/joel-salatin-and-the-straight-poop-on-sustainable-farming/

                     This is a pretty good explanation of the soil science and why they think the sequestration is significant,

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

                     The great thing about regenag is that not only might it be sequestering carbon, it is also far better for the land than conventional farming and it is one of the ways we will be able to grow food once the cheap oil is gone and the climate is more unstable.
             • Colonial Viper …

               2 May 2016 at 7:38 pm

               There’s no more room for optimism in our politics or in our in our circumstances.

               If you wish it, the Hobbits can hide out in the Shire for a little while longer and still lead good lives during that time. That is all the optimism that is warranted.
               • McFlock …

                 2 May 2016 at 7:47 pm

                 in that case, why bother bitching about it?
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   2 May 2016 at 7:53 pm

                   It’s my feminine side. I’m expressing myself, while not expecting any solutions.
                 • maui …

                   2 May 2016 at 9:16 pm

                   It’s popular in some circles 😀
                   
               • Bill …

                 2 May 2016 at 8:45 pm

                 Why hide hopelessly in ‘a shire’ waiting (referencing your other comment) for some authoritarian dystopia to descend, when it’s possible to usurp power and build sustainable, good lives rooted in community?

                 All we have to do to achieve that is simply not do most of what we do now. Maybe you’re saying it’s all too late, in which case, your ‘shire’ beckons.

                 Dunno where you’re going to get all your services and what not for that ‘shire’ if everyone else has decided to get moving on shit though. Maybe have a word with the stranded 5% who’ll be in the same isolated boat of ‘warranted optimism’?
                 • Colonial Viper …

                   2 May 2016 at 9:01 pm

                   I’m just noting that a lot of people will choose to (try and) hide in whatever “shire” that they can find. James Cameron’s farm in the Wairarapa. Millionaire’s redoubts in Wanaka.

                   Dunno where you’re going to get all your services and what not for that ‘shire’ if everyone else has decided to get moving on shit though.

                   People are coming to this shire (NZ). Lots of them.
     • Colonial Viper 3.3.3

       2 May 2016 at 7:52 pm

       Industrial-scale problems need industrial-scale solutions.

       I can guarantee that we are now at the point where the solution to the problems caused by more and more technology, and more and more industry, is not more and more technology, and more and more industry.
       • McFlock 3.3.3.1

         2 May 2016 at 8:04 pm

         Oh, you can guarantee it? End of discussion, I guess. We’re all doooooooomed!

         I might as well buy a 12litre 4×4.
         • Colonial Viper 3.3.3.1.1

           3 May 2016 at 1:25 am

           400cc quad bike and a couple of hectares.
   • NZJester 3.4

     2 May 2016 at 5:46 pm

     One big steep is coming up and that is to vote out the root of our problems.
     Those politicians who do not listen to the people.
     In the US right now groups like the Wolf-Pac are trying to get laws passed to get money out of politics there and bring back democracy to the US.
     We are losing our democracy here with National and its very large anonymous donations war chest and friends who help it control the MSM. We are meant to have controls on the money in politics here, but National has used all the loop holes to avoid a lot of the information about where the bulk of their money is coming from so they can appear to not be being influenced by money for legislation changes.
4. b waghorn 4

   2 May 2016 at 12:40 pm

   Its may and my tomatoes are still flowering in the heart of the king country,!!
   And I’ve noticed when people talk about how warm the weather is there is a their is something in there voice that makes me think that they are quietly worried, I know I am.
   • Bill 4.1

     2 May 2016 at 1:28 pm

     Dunedin mate. Flowering fucking tomatoes right now in the open air in Dunedin.
     • Colonial Viper 4.1.1

       2 May 2016 at 7:03 pm

       Its awesome ain’t it. Had a great harvest of tomatoes this year. And still going.

       Shit. Shit. Shit. Shit. Shit.
       • corokia 4.1.1.1

         2 May 2016 at 9:01 pm

         Guess you guys are watering your tomatoes then? In East Otago it’s very dry, it might be warm , but we haven’t been getting the rain here to grow much.

         Of course some one will helpfully tell me that we have always had droughts.

         And then we go and use huge amounts of water to grow grass to feed cows to produce milk and then use fossil fuels to take the water out of the milk.

         Age of Stupid.
         • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.1.1

           2 May 2016 at 9:04 pm

           Stupid is as stupid does.

           And we have many very bright, very experienced, very highly educated people doing the stupid right now.
   • Rosie 4.2

     2 May 2016 at 1:35 pm

     Ditto. Ripening tomatoes in Wellington.
5. Rosie 5

   2 May 2016 at 12:43 pm

   I wonder if NZer’s still have their heads in the sand because we see insane weather events happening on a large scale overseas, eg, heatwave and high death rates two years in a row in India, mega snow storms in the States, floods and epic high tides in the UK but urban based media ignore NZ’s own increasingly dramatic weather events, or simply report them without putting these events in a CC context. Little is discussed in the msm about rural drought and issues with irrigation. It’s just not Auckland enough baby. (No offence intended to Aucklanders – I simply observe that tv news is quite Auckland centric).

   Worst ever floods in Whanganui last year and the West coast flood a few weeks ago are only ever talked about in a human interest and insurance related context.

   Here in Wellington we’ve had unnaturally warm temperatures all year and the second driest summer on record. Now the annual watering restrictions have been lifted, I am watering the dead garden, now, in May. There has not yet been even one autumnal fire lit. I have wild ducks visiting in droves and ripping up what’s left of the lawn because there’s no grazing left for them in their usual spots due to farm paddocks drying out.

   And yet, the local media and the Mayor rave about what a great summer it was. The council seems to see no problem with CC apart from sea level rises and are ploughing ahead with their convention centre and airport extension plans. Hardly planning for a drastically different future is it?
   • Sabine 5.1

     2 May 2016 at 1:02 pm

     First thing Rosie, rip out the lawn. plant veggies and let the ‘lawn’ grow back into manageable weeds of all sorts – it is better for the dirt underneath the lawn.

     The weather in AKL is way to warm and not enough rain. Friends in Dunedin are still harvesting Tomatoes as of last week in April. And fruit trees are budding up in Northland.

     We do realise, but we are still in the ‘oh what a lovely day it is today’ mode. And the nice weather is good for tourism, so lets build more shit we don’t need, and concrete over some more nature.
     See, why make the people all nervous with doom and gloom, when you can pretend that the warmer then usual and the hotter then ever is good for something like tourism.
     • Rosie 5.1.1

       2 May 2016 at 1:33 pm

       Hi Sabine. We’re on rock where we are, with a thin layer of wind eroded soil and some pathetic grass, so what green there is, is staying 🙂 The section was barren when we arrived so had to borrow a post hole borer to drill through rock to plant shrubs and trees. We top up the malnourished soil/rock with home made compost.

       We are in phase one of growing food. Vege are planted in pots and we have made a raised herb garden out of recycled untreated pallets. We’re trying to source more untreated pallets to make a proper raised vege garden.

       And yep, there tourist mileage to be had out of unnatural weather. Apparently the local hospitality sector has been booming here too because people can eat more ice cream and sit outside the pub and have more to drink than usual, so it’s all good………… according to the paper.
       • Sabine 5.1.1.1

         2 May 2016 at 4:46 pm

         what i mean is rather then trying to grow “lawn’ which is an abomination unto itself, why not grow what would naturally grow there?

         and yes, raised beds are good, and compost. Go check with some of the vegetarian restaurants you might be able to score scrabs from them to feed your compost.

         Also I must say, i am a great fan of urban guerilla gardening and seed bombs. So much fun can be had.
         • Rosie 5.1.1.1.1

           2 May 2016 at 5:03 pm

           Lawns are a prickly topic for some, no pun intended. In fact, Philip Ure used to give regular anti lawn speeches here on TS. There are fair points, I accept, to the no lawn philosophy – in fact, if I lived somewhere fertile and sheltered I would probably grow a herb lawn.

           As it is “what naturally grows” where I live is gorse. Gorse on bare rock. Gorse comes through the lawn as we speak. Grass, so much more pleasant than gorse. Because summer was so dry, we didn’t mow it and just left it to grow into clover flower – it fed the bumble bee’s.
           • Sabine 5.1.1.1.1.1

             2 May 2016 at 7:31 pm

             ah ack hate gorse, hate it hate it hate it.

             i think we might be speaking about different ideas as “lawn”.
             lawn to me is manicured golf/rugby type greenery that takes liters upon liters of water to do well not really anything.

             what would be a better word for lawn that is grasses, dandylions, clover and the likes that feed insects and bee’s, use less water and are better in maintaining soil humidity?
             • Bill …

               2 May 2016 at 7:37 pm

               Gorse flowers = excellent wine.
               Gorse cut = excellent fire wood.
               Gorse left = protective shelter for saplings.
               Saplings grown to trees = dead gorse.

               I kinda quite like the stuff 🙂
               • Colonial Viper …

                 2 May 2016 at 7:43 pm

                 Does the stuff remind you of the SNP
               • maui …

                 2 May 2016 at 8:20 pm

                 Gorse is a real prick, it’s full of pricks! And the prickiest thing to walk through. Doesn’t cut with loppers, hard enough to cut with a decent saw. Hangs around for way too long (that can be decades). Then the seeds can last in the soil for years too. Much rather have manuka!
                 • weka …

                   2 May 2016 at 8:39 pm

                   True, if you want scrub. Gorse is a far better regeneration plant though. Manuka tend to hard the ground for itself. You can grow new native bush via gorse. Never seen that done with manuka.

                   I agree that manuka is a better choice for Rosie’s front lawn 🙂
                   • corokia …

                     2 May 2016 at 9:09 pm

                     How much land have you taken from gorse to native bush weka?
                   • maui …

                     2 May 2016 at 9:33 pm

                     I don’t know, gorse might be a quicker regenerater. I know of a couple of places where the manuka canopy is starting to break down and there’s now five finger, totara underneath that will replace it. I thought manuka had a life of about 40 years, not sure about gorse. Although when I was a kid the Rimutakas used to be mostly gorse, now a couple of decades later it’s all native forest when you drive over them.
                   • weka …

                     2 May 2016 at 10:49 pm

                     I don’t have any land corokia. Do you want examples of where other people have done this? Even DOC now agree this is possible and can be useful.

                     I don’t know, gorse might be a quicker regenerater. I know of a couple of places where the manuka canopy is starting to break down and there’s now five finger, totara underneath that will replace it. I thought manuka had a life of about 40 years, not sure about gorse. Although when I was a kid the Rimutakas used to be mostly gorse, now a couple of decades later it’s all native forest when you drive over them.

                     That’s very cool about the five finger and totara, I’ve not seen that. I’m sure climate and soil are a lot to do with it too (and what the land was used for before). And actually, I’m more familiar with kanuka, which can last hudreds of years before anything else happens and in some places is the climax forest (nothing else takes over). Manuka grow in wetter places right? so more likely to be suceeded.

                     Botanist Hugh Wilson said the turnover of gorse to native in the Hinewai Reserve was 25 years, but that was ideal conditions (moist, damp gully with native bush nearby as seed stock).

                     
                     The dominant early successional species in New Zealand, kānuka and mānuka (Leptospermum scoparium), have now been largely replaced by gorse (Sullivan et al. 2007). If disturbance such as fire or clearing of gorse is prevented, and a native seed source is available, native broadleaved species can dominate in around 30 years (Sullivan et al. 2007). Wardle (1991) noted that dense gorse stands collapse with age and are subsequently invaded by native plants. In Wellington, Druce (1957) found that gorse was vigorous in 10-year-old scrub, senile in 34-year-old scrub and dead in 40-year-old scrub, where it had been replaced by native trees. In Williams & Karl’s (2002) study near Nelson, native seedling survival was higher in gorse stands than in kānuka, probably because of openings in the canopy and the lower density of hares (Lepus europaeus) and rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus). However, where seed sources of native forest species are remote, the environment is marginal for forest or grazing eliminates tree seedlings, seral species such as gorse can form self-perpetuating stands (Wardle 1991).

                     http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/science-and-technical/drds336entire.pdf
                   • Pat …

                     3 May 2016 at 8:13 pm

                     “Manuka is a very important pioneering plant: its growth is the first stage towards the growth of a new native forest. By creating shade and shelter from the wind, it provides an excellent nursery for many young native plants to grow up in. Then, as they get taller and overtop it, the manuka dies away as a result of being shaded. It is excellent for revegetating bare, eroded slopes and can grow on poorer, colder, wetter and more acidic sites than kanuka. Another advantage of planting manuka for soil conservation is that browsing animals like sheep, cattle and goats don’t often eat it.”
             • Brigid …

               2 May 2016 at 9:28 pm

               Gorse is a legume – fixes nitrogen. And goats love it.
               • corokia …

                 2 May 2016 at 9:38 pm

                 Gorse is an inpenetrable thicket of thorns. It covers many hectares down here, you’d need a lot of goats and a lot of tall stock proof fences to stop them eating everything else.
               • KJT …

                 3 May 2016 at 9:28 am

                 Yep. Goats love gorse, but they love non prickly plants even more. They eat every sign of anything else below the roots before they touch the gorse.

                 I can vouch for gorse as a nurse crop. Remembering so many places 30 years ago which seemed irredeemably covered in gorse which are now actives.
                 Clearing gorse just seems to encourage it.
   • weka 5.2

     2 May 2016 at 1:24 pm

     I wonder if NZer’s still have their heads in the sand because we see insane weather events happening on a large scale overseas, eg, heatwave and high death rates two years in a row in India, mega snow storms in the States, floods and epic high tides in the UK but urban based media ignore NZ’s own increasingly dramatic weather events, or simply report them without putting these events in a CC context. Little is discussed in the msm about rural drought and issues with irrigation. It’s just not Auckland enough baby. (No offence intended to Aucklanders – I simply observe that tv news is quite Auckland centric).

     It’s true that the media and govt are failing us but I think we need to be careful about how we frame things too. Most NZers don’t have their heads in the sand, something like 75% want the govt to do more on climate change. That’s what we need to focus on.
     • Rosie 5.2.1

       2 May 2016 at 1:48 pm

       Are we really that clued up weka? I just don’t see people driven change happening around us. But then my observations could be quite subjective in the big picture, meaning, over the last few years I’ve met only a handful of people that have any concern about CC – the rest, when the topic is raised couldn’t seem to care less. Do I mix in the wrong circles? Am I not seeing something?

       I would like to have faith in NZer’s embracing serious climate change policy, should we ever elect a govt that will face the problem head on, but call me pessimistic, I don’t see people moving past their selfishness.
       • weka 5.2.1.1

         2 May 2016 at 4:50 pm

         Can’t disagree with a lot of that Rosie. I also would say that most people aren’t that clued up, but there is research that shows that most people want the NZ govt to do more, so not completely clueless either. And remember how last year when the flag referendum meetings were happening, all that publicity and hardly anyone went to them, but the CC target meetings were happening at the same time, very little notice was given and they were badly adverstised and some of those meetings were packed out.

         We’re at a tipping point, which is why I think we need to be careful about how we frame things. I’ll have a look for the research later.

         Speaking of circles, I know lots of people who are aware of climate change. Most of them are still not making significant sacrifices in their lives either. People are still waiting for the govt to save us, or they feel powerless, or they think that it’s all about the transition to electric cars and that is for someone else to sort out. Sometimes I think it’s selfishness, but I also think it’s just what we are used to. Most people can’t yet conceive of being in wartime, or having to rely on ourselves to change. Yet.
         • Rosie 5.2.1.1.1

           2 May 2016 at 5:13 pm

           Hi weka. When you have time I would be interested to see the research on NZer’s attitudes towards CC, but no hurry. I don’t doubt you, personally – I’m just curious.

           Good example about the poorly advertised govt run CC talks last year 🙂
           • weka 5.2.1.1.1.1

             2 May 2016 at 8:52 pm

             Can’t find what I was looking for but there is these,

             A summary of the consultation responses said there was a strong call for an ambitious target and leadership from the government with the most common target suggested by stakeholders being 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 or a target of zero carbon by 2050.

             (17,000 submissions despite being poorly organised)

             http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/new-2030-greenhouse-gas-emissions-target-far-weaker-2020-goal-climate-change-expert-b-175262

             This article focusses on the 13% of deniers, but we could look at the 87% of non-deniers instead.

             http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/277400/study-finds-13-percent-of-nzers-climate-change-sceptics
             • Colonial Viper …

               3 May 2016 at 1:23 am

               I think use of carbon fuels will drop to near zero sometime in the 2060s anyway, without any special effort.
             • Rosie …

               3 May 2016 at 10:37 am

               Thanks for those two articles. This in particular makes sense:

               “The study found countries with higher carbon dioxide emissions had greater rates of scepticism – and the people most likely to be sceptics tend to be male, politically conservative and less concerned about the environment.”

               This is what we see in NZ. Interesting that we had among the highest rates of scepticism in the Tasmanian study. Still, like you say, that’s 87% who aren’t sceptics.

               Re the gorse thread above. Our neighbourhood native planting group has planted up public areas with 1000’s of plants over the years. The gorse is a good shelter plant for saplings but because of the harsh windy dry conditions we do struggle to get natives to thrive. Would like to see the manuka doing better. Manuka forest would be appropriate for this area.
     • Pat 5.2.2

       2 May 2016 at 7:21 pm

       “Most NZers don’t have their heads in the sand, something like 75% want the govt to do more on climate change.”

       That may well be correct…..until the changes necessary directly impact their lifestyle…and therein is the problem, there is no doubt radical action is needed urgently but can it occur without system collapse in the required timeframe?….
       • Bill 5.2.2.1

         2 May 2016 at 7:42 pm

         Lifestyle changes are only changing those things that require fossil to be burned – some travel, some fairly vacuous consumerism…

         Anyway, lets assume for the sake of argument that the required action entails bringing about a collapse of current institutions and the systems they’re embedded in. Is that a problem?
         • Colonial Viper 5.2.2.1.1

           2 May 2016 at 7:46 pm

           Well, a quack like me still knows exactly where and who to go to for healthcare when that massive entrenched system implodes due to a lack of $$$, global logistics, and surplus energy high tech.
           • corokia 5.2.2.1.1.1

             2 May 2016 at 9:11 pm

             Hit you up for some insulin then when the shit hits the fan CV?
             • Colonial Viper …

               3 May 2016 at 1:21 am

               we will still be able to raise pigs in NZ you know.

               And since rates of obesity are going to drop through the floor, we aint going to be using as much of it.
               • Corokia …

                 3 May 2016 at 1:07 pm

                 Food shortages will probably cut the numbers of type 2 diabetics, but as for the 10% of diabetics who are type 1, we are hoping that the medical supply chains keep going for a while yet 🙂
         • Pat 5.2.2.1.2

           2 May 2016 at 7:54 pm

           We can burn maybe between 10 and 30 % of known reserves…a simple formula would be a rapid reduction in current consumption…the basis of almost all economic activity…..and almost all food production.

           “nyway, lets assume for the sake of argument that the required action entails bringing about a collapse of current institutions and the systems they’re embedded in. Is that a problem?’

           Yes, its a huge problem….its very difficult to organize any form of concerted activity when you have anarchy….ask the likes of a Syrian refugee…..How will the majority of the developed world cope with say an overnight doubling of fuel price or rationing?….but, but i need to drive for my job, we have no public transport. its not fair that agriculture gets all the fuel to use.etc etc…how much food do you have in your cupboards? could you provide all your families needs next year if you had to? could you function without access to a private vehicle?would your job still exist if the fuel was rationed?what do you mean i can’t fly to Oz to see the grandkids….starting to get the picture?….we have wasted 20 plus years where we may have been able to transition but now the timeframe is dangerously short.
           • weka 5.2.2.1.2.1

             2 May 2016 at 8:33 pm

             Forget about the developped world, we can’t solve that problem, look at NZ, or even better our own rohe.

             If your job is essential to keep society going society will prioritise your transport fuel. It will also be hugely motivated to enable people to work from home where that is possible, and/or move work close to where people live.

             I agree a hard and fast collapse would leave people hungry and starving, but we know that other kinds of collapses are manageable. Cuba is the obvious example. The end of the Soviet Union means they have very little import fuel and have to convert to local low-industrialised food production quickly. Yes people went hungry, afaik no-one starved to death, and in the end the health of the population improved due to eating less processed foods and meat and more veges, and to having to walk and cycle more.

             “could you function without access to a private vehicle?”

             I have a disability and am very dependent on my car, but it’s still doable. It’s one of the things I am focussed on currently, how to use my car less. What do we need to travel for? Mostly for me it’s going to town to buy food or going to visit people. My neighbours can pick up my groceries once a week. Or someone opens a food store in my neighbourhood. People who lose their jobs will stay home and grow food, or fix the roof, or whatever.

             “what do you mean i can’t fly to Oz to see the grandkids….starting to get the picture?”

             Honestly, I think if we’re worried about being able to feed ourselves for the rest of the year then concerns like overseas flights disappear pretty quick.

             I think a medium paced collapse would be hard but not impossible. We have to stop being afraid of it because it’s not only likely, but it’s the best thing that could happen right now for the planet. Govt led climate change action is not happening.

             For me the scariest thing isn’t the powerdown or a collapse, it’s having National in power when it happens. This is a huge part of the pragmatics of my voting politics. We need a left wing govt not because they will save us but because they are less likely to go feudal on us when the time comes.
             • Pat …

               2 May 2016 at 8:44 pm

               you ask why the leadership does nothing…I submit they don’t know how.

               you suggest we can drive it from below….I suggest when people realise what it entails you will have massive resistance

               you suggest we can cope with a power down or dismantling of our economic system….i say some individuals may, society cannot in the required timeframe.

               I will agree that when you don’t know where your next meal is coming from air travel is merely an escapist dream…..but these are the sort of questions that will need to be asked and answered very soon as we cannot continue to use fossil fuels at current rates and virtually at all in the medium term.

               Can it be done?…possibly, if we are very very lucky

               Will it be done?…not in my opinion
               • Pat …

                 2 May 2016 at 8:57 pm

                 http://www.monbiot.com/2009/05/06/how-much-should-we-leave-in-the-ground/

                 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/keep-it-in-the-ground-blog/2015/mar/25/what-numbers-tell-about-how-much-fossil-fuel-reserves-cant-burn
                 • Paul …

                   2 May 2016 at 9:01 pm
                   • Pat …

                     2 May 2016 at 9:48 pm

                     yes…I know…..but as correct as he is he won’t be heeded.
                   • RedLogix …

                     2 May 2016 at 10:57 pm

                     Thanks for the link Paul. I spotted it earlier but forgot about it.

                     Absolutely worth the time to watch. Summarises much of the debate which has taken place on The Standard over the years, and defines exactly where we stand.
                 • Paul …

                   2 May 2016 at 9:55 pm

                   If not, we’re in trouble.
                   • Pat …

                     2 May 2016 at 10:36 pm

                     yes…. we are
               • Bill …

                 2 May 2016 at 10:27 pm

                 k – you’re overlooking something. Right now, it’s about 10% of people within current society who have to knock their lifestyles on the head to begin that drop to zero from fossil. Now, I can imagine most of them won’t want a bar of it. But if they carry on – if we allow them to carry on, then there will likely be a sudden end to economic framework of the way things are now.

                 On the other hand, if they play ball and a kind of Marshall Plan is launched to retrofit existing infrastructure and otherwise prepare for (say) a 3°C increase in temperature, then they can get back to living the lives they do today in a generation or so…after zero fossil fuel supplies have been built.

                 My preference, given all that is wrong with capitalist society and market economies, is to see the whole lot dropped it all in the dirt. I’m happy enough to give the 5% or 10% a chance to do the right thing though…question is, how long do they get exhibit any inclination of doing the right thing? Or is their time up?
                 • Pat …

                   2 May 2016 at 10:45 pm

                   no …the question is how do you organize society and the means of production that doesn’t continue feeding climate change?….without destroying society.
                   • Bill …

                     2 May 2016 at 10:48 pm

                     Any way you like…as long as it doesn’t involve burning fossil.

                     And the policy doc from 2007 that Weka has linked below (comment 10) contains some good stuff that the Clark government was taking on board. Seems that National doused it in petrol and set it alight…
                   • weka …

                     2 May 2016 at 10:52 pm

                     I think the question is should we save the planet even if that means society gets destroyed? For me it’s a moot point. If we don’t do the right things society will be destroyed anyway.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     2 May 2016 at 10:54 pm

                     Our current society will need to be fundamentally reorganised. Many of the things which motivate and control people in society now will be gone.

                     Is this the same as destroying it?

                     Perhaps, from a certain point of view 😛
                   • Pat …

                     2 May 2016 at 10:59 pm

                     “I think the question is should we save the planet even if that means society gets destroyed? ”

                     you mistakenly think the planet is the human population….the planet will survive fine (better) without human society….been plenty of extinction events in the past
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     2 May 2016 at 11:00 pm

                     I think the question is should we save the planet even if that means society gets destroyed?

                     The planet will be fine. It does not require us to “save it” in any way shape or form.

                     And its coming to the time when it is going to quit doing us favours, too.
                   • weka …

                     2 May 2016 at 11:07 pm

                     you mistakenly think the planet is the human population

                     No, I really don’t.

                     ….the planet will survive fine (better) without human society….been plenty of extinction events in the past

                     What do you mean by the planet there? Because I was meaning the whole of life that exists currently, including the multiplicity of ecosystems. Saying that the planet will be fine is like saying that Māori were fine after colonisation. Mass extinction of the kind happening now is not ‘fine’. Or course nature will continue, it would be pretty hard to wipe out all life on earth. But we don’t know how it will recover, or if it will. Just because life evolved in certain ways in the past doesn’t mean it will again.

                     It’s also a concern that this idea feeds another idea that the only reason we should look afer the environment is for human needs. If nature will be fine then it doesn’t matter if we pollute the water and burn down the forests.
                   • Pat …

                     2 May 2016 at 11:09 pm

                     when I say destroy CV I mean as a functioning unit that provides for its members….not a dystopian jungle like a bad Mad Max movie.
                   • weka …

                     2 May 2016 at 11:11 pm

                     I will also note that you avoided dealing with my statement directly,

                     “I think the question is should we save the planet even if that means society gets destroyed? ”

                     So let me rephrase. I think the question is should we take action to prevent global warming even if that means society gets destroyed?

                     I can see that if you think that nature will be fine whatever happens then the destruction of society is pretty important and avoidance of that at all costs might be a valuable thing. But if like me one believes that nature has inherent value and even rights, and that humans are part of that not separate from it, then the preservation of society becomes a far less important thing.
                   • Pat …

                     2 May 2016 at 11:17 pm

                     suggesting Im implying that ecosystems are there for the use/exploitation by humans is a cheap shot and serves no purpose
                   • weka …

                     2 May 2016 at 11:23 pm

                     no more than you suggesting that I think the planet is just the humans. And yet I still responded to your points.
                   • Pat …

                     2 May 2016 at 11:25 pm

                     touche
                   • Pat …

                     2 May 2016 at 11:36 pm

                     “So let me rephrase. I think the question is should we take action to prevent global warming even if that means society gets destroyed?”

                     couple of points…..it would be preferable to try to do it without destroying society and by extension those who make it up….and if we keep a functioning society it will provide the opportunity to (perhaps) develop the engineered mitigations that appear to be increasingly needed…..but as stated often my faith in the species allowing that to occur is close to non -existent, so my opinion in that respect carries about 1/8,000,000,000 of impact
                   • weka …

                     2 May 2016 at 11:47 pm

                     For me I think societal collapse is fairly inevitable, it’s just a matter of when and whether we prepare for it or let it crash from under us. I don’t see societal collapse as a negative, because like Bill I think the whole capitalist what have you structure is inherently destructive and is the thing that is preventing us from mitigating the worst of AGW. But I also don’t see the collapse of society as being anarchic in the way you meant, nor a tragedy for people. If it happens fast people will get hurt, but there are benefits too if it happens in a more paced way or if we prepare.

                     Have you ever read Dmitri’s Orlov’s work on what happened to the villages in Russia when the Soviet Union collapsed?
                   • Pat …

                     2 May 2016 at 11:53 pm

                     No I haven’t read Orlov but suspect that the villagers rallied and by working together survived and perhaps prospered…..and i too think that societal (as we know it) collapse inevitable and controlled collapse is preferable, but before jumping headlong into pulling down the old I think it preferable to have a plan for a new that at least has a chance of success
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     3 May 2016 at 1:08 am

                     the Earth has under gone mass extinction events before, and massive cycles of climate change and ecosystem destruction.

                     And it will carry on fine after the next one. 5M years from now a whole new ecosystem will be taking root, long after all trace of intelligent apes have disappeared.
                   • Lanthanide …

                     3 May 2016 at 5:27 pm

                     “long after all trace of intelligent apes have disappeared.”

                     I know you just meant that as a flippant remark, but I think there will be traces of humans on this planet still visible in a billion years time. Also on the moon and mars.

                     Just as we can find fossils going back about ~1 billion years. And obviously humans have made way bigger changes to the landscape than individual fossilized animals ever have. Eg all of the deposits of metals on the earth’s surface from our industrial civilization, even if they’re buried under landslides and mountain building, will be revealed under close examination (by aliens) to be artificial. There will probably be a fair number of fossilized humans that last that long too – we’ve already found lots of “bog bodies” – they’re really just the first few centuries of how a fossil is formed.

                     Radioactive isotopes that aren’t found in nature are also a dead giveaway, and some of them have half-lives in the billions of years range.
               • weka …

                 2 May 2016 at 11:01 pm

                 you suggest we can cope with a power down or dismantling of our economic system….i say some individuals may, society cannot in the required timeframe.

                 It depends on whether we are referring the same kinds of circumstances. I don’t for instance believe that it’s terribly likely that NZ will end up in a situation like Syria. So that’s not what I am referring to. We can certainly cope collectively with the powerdown if we participate. There are people alive who lived through the Great Depression and WW2. Not exactly what we are facing now, but still pretty big societal change.

                 I will agree that when you don’t know where your next meal is coming from air travel is merely an escapist dream…..but these are the sort of questions that will need to be asked and answered very soon as we cannot continue to use fossil fuels at current rates and virtually at all in the medium term.

                 True, but I think I was meaning that we would cope if it was forced on us by circumstance eg a big GFC.

                 Can it be done?…possibly, if we are very very lucky

                 Will it be done?…not in my opinion

                 Well if we are doing predictions, I would offer Tipping Point theory as applied to society. We cannot know what will happen, nor the likelihood of any particular direction. When you have very complex phenomena that are unstable unexpected thigns can happen. I’m not surprised we haven’t changed (8 years of National and yep, see the MSD report link below and what they squashed). I’ll also not be surprised if in the next 5 years we have a whole lot of people start to get on board with the need to change and actually doing something.
                 • Pat …

                   2 May 2016 at 11:04 pm

                   “I’ll also not be surprised if in the next 5 years we have a whole lot of people start to get on board with the need to change and actually doing something.”

                   like what exactly?……reducing the use of dense energy by say 80% in the next 5 years perhaps and all that that implies?
                   • weka …

                     2 May 2016 at 11:14 pm

                     No, I’m talking about a tipping point in society and people’s consciousness and willingness to change. Nothing will change until that happens. We’ve already seen a huge shift in the past five years. If that speeds up in response to more local extreme weather events and reporting of global ones, then it’s possible that people will get on board much more quickly than in the past.

                     And let’s not forget that whole economies have adapted in short periods of time (Cuba, WW2).
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     3 May 2016 at 1:18 am

                     theres no “tipping point”. All that is optimistic hippy nonsense.
                 • Pat …

                   2 May 2016 at 11:20 pm

                   “And let’s not forget that whole economies have adapted in short periods of time (Cuba, WW2).”

                   not without the use of the basis of system support….which is the main cause of the problem and has created the excess demand for ALL resources that make it unsustainable
                   • weka …

                     2 May 2016 at 11:30 pm

                     I don’t know what you are saying there. We don’t lose all infrastructure overnight, so of course we have the basis of that support system.

                     If you are arguing that we cannot reduce emissions significantly without underming the economy, I agree. I just don’t think the economy we have now is the only option.
                   • Pat …

                     2 May 2016 at 11:37 pm

                     what is the economy?
                   • weka …

                     2 May 2016 at 11:42 pm

                     true.
                   • Pat …

                     2 May 2016 at 11:43 pm

                     no ,its a question….what is the economy, what does it do?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     3 May 2016 at 1:13 am

                     “I don’t know what you are saying there. We don’t lose all infrastructure overnight, so of course we have the basis of that support system.”

                     Most of those infrastructure systems will be completely broken within 6 months. How many days stock does your local Foodstuffs distribution centre hold: 5? I doubt even tgat.
6. Coaster 6

   2 May 2016 at 4:05 pm

   The first thing to change peoples perceptions is on where to buy, to do this we would need an easy to access map with sea level rise shown. This would lower the value of coastal property as who would buy a house that might be submerged in 30 years, thus making those people with expensive coastal propertys squark.
   When the rich sqwark in dismay as there coastal proert values crash, the government will act quick sharp.
   • Colonial Viper 6.1

     2 May 2016 at 7:12 pm

     http://www.floodmap.net/
7. Paul 7

   2 May 2016 at 8:05 pm

   This website is an excellent source of climate news, with a New Zealand perspective.
   Frankly, it’s terrifying what’s happening at the moment.

   http://robinwestenra.blogspot.co.nz/
8. Michael 8

   2 May 2016 at 8:51 pm

   It’s too late now to do anything effective about climate change, even if our friends in the “business community” allowed us. The time to take action was 20 to 30 years ago, when the evidence concerning anthropogenic climate change began to seep into the public domain (in spite of heroic efforts by, and on behalf of, our friends in the “business community” to suppress that evidence, along with those who discerned it). As for the future, we will live in a warmer, and more climatically usntable, world. Who knows, perhaps our friends in the “business community” have some profitable schemes for making money out of the perils and opportunities of that world, just as they did from the world we are now leaving? One thing is for certain: if our friends in the “business community” don’t want something to happen, it won’t.
9. Paul 9

   2 May 2016 at 9:19 pm

   Collapse – Michael C Ruppert
10. weka 10

    2 May 2016 at 10:27 pm

    For interest, the MSD under Clark’s government did the work on The Social Implications of Decarbonising the New Zealand Economy,

    https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj31/31-the-social-implications-of-decarbonising-pages104-136.html
    • Bill 10.1

      2 May 2016 at 11:17 pm

      Kind of depressing to know that NZ was getting towards the right track back in 2007.

      Also abundantly clear from reading that paper that the actions of John Key and his cronies have been deliberate and done with the knowledge that a huge amount of unnecessary suffering was going to be inflicted on people if they did what they have done.
      • weka 10.1.1

        2 May 2016 at 11:41 pm

        tbh I think it’s going to take a while for the implications of that link and the date on it to sink in. I suspect I am going to feel very angry.
        • Colonial Viper 10.1.1.1

          3 May 2016 at 1:16 am

          then comes the bargaining stage.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS