Naomi Klein correctly calls Tony Abbott a Climate Villain

71 comments on “Naomi Klein correctly calls Tony Abbott a Climate Villain ”

• Comments are now closed

1. tc 1

   6 September 2015 at 10:29 am

   Abbott is fronting the worst oz govt in living memory, he’s hamstrung by his lack of popularity both in and outside parliament and it’s all his own doing.

   Public broadcasting, human rights, privacy etc are all under attack by an array of underperforming ministers, some even Howard deemed not fit to hold office like brandis, Morrison etc.

   Abbott attacks with Wupperts media outlets assistance are becoming more unhinged as time passes, his recent attacks on Gillian Triggs being a good example.

   His position on wind farms and coal just illustrates what a knuckle dragger he is and the liberals would’ve dumped him by now if labor had someone electable leading them.

   He’s still PM because Murdoch says so and Malcolm is waiting patiently and there’s no panic whilst shorten leads labor so expect more of this from this righteous twat.
2. Robert Atack 2

   6 September 2015 at 10:41 am

   Naomi Klein just had a child, she is now part of the problem. Her opinion doesn’t count anymore.
   • weka 2.1

     6 September 2015 at 10:55 am

     You’re still alive and using a computer, so neither does yours.
     • Robert Atack 2.1.1

       6 September 2015 at 4:13 pm

       I didn’t ask to be born, I haven’t contributed to the problem, curse my mother if you need to blame anyone (i do)
       • weka 2.1.1.1

         6 September 2015 at 4:22 pm

         How disappointing, that’s such a cop out on the ideological front. When it comes down to it, you are just like everyone else, right? “I havven’t contributed to the problem” Really? I don’t believe you.

         Because you could kill yourself Robert, if you really believe that a human being on the planet is inherently a net contributor to cc (I assume you are advocating that women who get pregnant unintentionally have an abortion whether they want to or not). Or, less drastically, you could stop using your computer and the internet, and all the other modern day lifestyle things you still use despite their contribution to climate change.

         There are a great many things we can to do limit the impact of climate change on the planet, and I believe that limiting population is one of them. But blaming women who have kids is hypocritical, illogical and ultimately unhelpful in trying to effect the social change we desperately need.
         • Robert Atack 2.1.1.1.1

           6 September 2015 at 4:42 pm

           Listen to what I am saying FFS.
           The future is fucked for human habitat, the CHILDREN are going to suffer, the only way a child is going to avoid this future is to not be here, ie that little refugee poster child isn’t suffering is he?
           It wouldn’t matter if I did what you want me to do (just be patient, I’m sure as hell am not going to hang around), even if the planet was full of 7.2 billion Weka’s we would still be going extinct.
           Even if all the Weka’s left the planet tonight, @ 400+ ppm CO2 human habitat is guaranteed to disappear .
           I would rather take the precautionary principle than rely on politicians and uninformed people.
           • weka 2.1.1.1.1.1

             6 September 2015 at 6:47 pm

             I do understand your position Robert. I just disagree that Klein risking the suffering of her child renders everything she then says and does re cc irrelevant or invalid.

             You don’t know that we are past the point of no return re extinction, it’s an assertion that you can’t back up. So when I respond to you, that’s always the context. My own belief is that we can still do things to lessen the impact (even if we are heading for extinction).

             I also don’t think you get to determine the value of someone else’s suffering. Maybe Klein’s child is the one that saves a whole lot of other people. You are basically talking philosophy, and that’s always going to be debatable.
         • b waghorn 2.1.1.1.2

           6 September 2015 at 4:43 pm

           I don’t think suggesting suicide to someone with clear issues is appropriate here or anywhere !
           • marty mars 2.1.1.1.2.1

             6 September 2015 at 4:56 pm

             yep – it is taking it too far imo
           • Robert Atack 2.1.1.1.2.2

             6 September 2015 at 6:16 pm

             I kind of thought so to, I think Weka. knows I can handle it, but it is a shame I will not be able to read the obituaries to see how Weka and its family is going.
             • weka …

               6 September 2015 at 6:49 pm

               I don’t have a family, but if I did I certainly wouldn’t be suggesting they kill themselves any more than I was suggesting you do.

               I do think it’s likely we will get to a point where people choose to leave for all sorts of reasons related to CC. I’m not sure we are ready to talk about that yet though.
           • weka 2.1.1.1.2.3

             6 September 2015 at 6:43 pm

             I’m not suggesting Robert kills himself. I’m pointing out that in the extremity of his general position on CC (which I know reasonably well), he is a hypocrite for condemning Klein while still keeping himself alive or using his computer etc. The solution to that hypocrisy isn’t to kill himself, it’s to have compassion for others, and to smarten up his critical thinking.

             We’re all hypocrites when it comes to CC. We shouldn’t be damned for that.
             • Robert Atack …

               6 September 2015 at 8:24 pm

               M8 I burn plastic regularly, if it doesn’t go out in the free ‘recycle’ collection it gets burnt, I’m way past caring what my actions do for the environment, my job is turning nature into firewood (builder) I don’t tell my clients how dumb it is to have children, I mean I get to build bedrooms for the little buggers, so that’s all good by me)
               I’m just pointing out to people who think they can change things how pointless it all is …. you know, getting all the “I told you so’s” on the record.
               I’m not saying do this or do that ie don’t use a computer, or breath. I’m saying it doesn’t matter what you do.
               Having 10 or no children will change nothing for you or the environment, all I’m saying is the only way to reduce future suffering is if there are less people to suffer.
               If every human left the planet tonight, it would still go to crap.
               When some clown starts talking about reducing CO2 etc , they are just showing they have been sucking the hopium pipe, or their salary is dependent on maintain the lie – see most scientists tied to university’s or Govt jobs. Even watering down the message got Jim Salinger the sack,
               Jason Box (google him) said about 18 months ago “We are fucked” – he only just manged to keep his job, he wants to buy some land on Greenland, when it becomes available )
               I’ve built a 60m2 glass house, and ‘created’ another 100m2 garden about 12 years ago, on our 3 hectare property, but after working out most of my neighbors would be knocking on the door demanding food, I’ve let the whole garden go to weeds, what is the point? If I don’t have anything I will not be a target.
               Good luck with your denial.
               • weka …

                 6 September 2015 at 8:41 pm

                 Thanks Robert, that’s the best demonstration so far that you are indeed a serious part of the problem along with the CC deniers and promoters. There are so many ways in which having a garden has a point, but if you, given all your attention to this matter, haven’t figured it out there’s probably not much I can say that is useful.

                 The more I see of your view, the more it just looks like self-absorption. You don’t seem to care about the planetary ecology, it’s all about how you personally feel about human suffering, which you then project into your politics. Nothing wrong with that except the dishonesty and the fact that it places you as part of the problem.

                 As I will keep mentioning, you don’t know it’s too late, you’re taking that one on faith.

                 btw, I’m not denying what you say about the realities of CC itself (as opposed to the consequences for humans). It’s possible that what you say is true. We just don’t know yet, and everything else flows from that.
               • marty mars …

                 6 September 2015 at 9:02 pm

                 Robert, I think you are a sentimentalist – reducing people’s future suffering is a nice ideal – guess what mate – we all die – dying is in some ways the easy bit because it will happen. Dying isn’t the key, how we live is what makes us who and what we are.

                 Plus I cannot think of a worse job for someone with your stated views than the one you have – irony bummer that one.
                 • Corokia …

                   6 September 2015 at 9:20 pm

                   Nothing very sentimental about …
                   “I said we needed to ban all immigration and place a machine gun @ every 100 meters around NZ,”
                   http://thestandard.org.nz/naomi-klein-correctly-calls-tony-abbott-a-climate-villain/#comment-1067590

                   Every climate change discussion, in comes Robert with his ‘nothing can be done, give up now and don’t have kids because it’s too cruel to bring them into this world’. I can’t reconcile the supposed concern for future children with the idea of placing machine guns on our shores to keep our fellow humans out.
                   • weka …

                     6 September 2015 at 9:32 pm

                     it seems similar to militant vegans to me. It’s ok to harm humans to prevent the suffering of animals. Never made sense to me.
                   • marty mars …

                     6 September 2015 at 9:51 pm

                     Robert is bluster and bullshit imo. Personally I don’t give a fuck what he says but then I’ve got a 7 month old and 8 year old so I’ll be working hard to prepare them for life whatever it brings.

                     btw it wasn’t a compliment – ” sentimentalist: a tendency to have or express feelings of love, sadness, etc., especially in a way that seems foolish or excessive : a sentimental quality”
   • Pat 2.2

     6 September 2015 at 11:12 am

     we may as well set up the militias now
     • Robert Atack 2.2.1

       6 September 2015 at 4:14 pm

       yep, it is going to be ‘might is right’, we, and your children face a blood bath.
   • Paul 2.3

     6 September 2015 at 11:38 am

     That seems quite a churlish comment.
   • marty mars 2.4

     6 September 2015 at 11:50 am

     lol – won’t be many commenting under your rules robert – luckily, as weka noted, your input is irrelevant at best.
     • Robert Atack 2.4.1

       6 September 2015 at 4:18 pm

       And unfortunately the truth at worse )
   • Corokia 2.5

     6 September 2015 at 12:16 pm

     This is the same shit the climate deniers throw at anyone who speaks out- according to them (and Robert Atack) you must somehow exit society before you are allowed to speak out.

     According to Robert, the human race must stop breeding now because nothing can be done and we are all going to die soon. So if the outcome is already known Robert, why does it bother you that people listen to Naomi?
     • Robert Atack 2.5.1

       6 September 2015 at 4:17 pm

       Because Crokia, her idiot comments give fools hope, and pop out comes another victim. It is not my fault this rock has become human unfriendly.
       I’m just sooooooo happy I don’t have to watch my children suffer.
       • Corokia 2.5.1.1

         6 September 2015 at 9:23 pm

         You seem pretty “human unfriendly” and you sure as hell don’t come across as happy about anything, unless sharing a message of impending doom does it for you.
3. dukeofurl 3

   6 September 2015 at 11:14 am

   Interesting that Jeremy Corbyn’s brother Piers Corbyn is a well know , if off beat weather forecaster in the UK. ( Ken Ring is probably our equivalent)
   As far as AGW goes he is in total contradiction:

   “The piece, and the Global Warmers camp in general, while pretending to be objective skilfully avoid applying sound science and provide no answers to the mounting evidence which refutes the crumbling Global Warmers theory. It puts lipstick on scientific fraud but it remains fraud.”

   His website weatheraction
   http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact48
   • weka 3.1

     6 September 2015 at 11:28 am

     what exactly would you like to be discussed here duke?
   • Kelly-Ned 3.2

     6 September 2015 at 12:35 pm

     A valuable link Duke. I wonder if they could update it with even more recent data?
     Few people are willing to genuinely investigate for themselves the truth behind global climate change. And it does change, the argument is about what causes it.
     Some are saying that NZ will experience an increase in extreme rainfalls over the coming years.
     However the truth is that we always have had a cycle of fairly localised heavy rain falls. A colleague of mine has put together this site which records NZ rain events of the last 150 years.
     The data indicates that the most severe events occurred in the first 50 of the last 150 years. Now what does that suggest?
     But don’t take my word for it. Have a look for yourself.
     http://www.nzextremerainfalls.com/index.html
     • weka 3.2.1

       6 September 2015 at 1:18 pm

       Are you saying that there is no such thing as AGW?
     • Tricledrown 3.2.2

       6 September 2015 at 2:39 pm

       Kelly Ned.
       You have data but no control.
       Most Rivers that caused flooding have had flood mitigation work.
       Deforestation has taken place.
       Many other factors to be included.
       Cynicism is not a substitute for science.
4. Corokia 4

   6 September 2015 at 12:09 pm

   Naomi Klein at the Festival of Dangerous Ideas is up on you tube.
   • Bill 4.1

     6 September 2015 at 12:27 pm

     The link… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5LuIAJEFUc
     • adam 4.1.1

       6 September 2015 at 1:47 pm

       Thanks Bill, great wee video.
     • RedLogix 4.1.2

       6 September 2015 at 2:27 pm

       Thanks Bill.

       I even looked at getting off my arse and getting to the Opera House to see it live if I could, but I was too late – booked out.

       This talk was just yesterday and it’s absolutely a must watch. At many levels.
5. johnm 5

   6 September 2015 at 12:55 pm

   Both Naomi and Tony are now irrelevant, they’re being outstaged by a climate which is taking off doing its own thing and nothing we do can stop it! Gaia harmonised the climate but we successfully disabled her! 🙁

   Refer Lovelock’s ” The revenge of Gaia ” Actually Gaia is not taking revenge she’d still harmonise things if she could.

   I believe Lovelock’s insight into Gaia should have won a nobel prize , it’s a whole universe more important to our lives than e=mc squared, yet this critical insight is ignored! probably it’s now too self evident and doesn’t require a PHD to understand it.
   • Corokia 5.1

     6 September 2015 at 1:01 pm

     “nothing we do can stop it! ”
     So we ignore it, do we? Roll over and die?? Do nothing?
     • weka 5.1.1

       6 September 2015 at 1:13 pm

       There’s plenty we can do, and for those of us that care about Gaia, doing those things is an imperative.
     • johnm 5.1.2

       6 September 2015 at 1:33 pm

       Hi Corokia

       Well, yes our best path now maybe to at least cut back on fossil fuel pollution as far as humanly possible though that won’t stop the Planet eventually settling into a new hot equilibrium.
       Adaptation to what’s coming: 1. Limit population to a steady self replacement figure, maybe only one baby per couple max. 2. No more immigration of any sort 3. No more growth that’s finished, a steady state economy, to make that work we must end wealth and the culture of greed and share the wealth and income of this land with all kiwis, all must be housed properly no more greed. 4. prepare a fortress NZ that’s self sufficient and doesn’t rely on exports. 5. Everyone become vegetarian. All this doesn’t guarantee survival on a Planet moving to hot conditions and high sea levels never before experienced by man in his entire history, but its worth a try.
       O yes, stop fing the atmosphere flying here there and everywhere like a bunch of mad lemmings who’ve sprouted wings!!
       • Corokia 5.1.2.1

         6 September 2015 at 2:41 pm

         “No more immigration of any sort.” FFS! So we just let other Pacific Islanders die in their flooded homelands!
         • johnm 5.1.2.1.1

           6 September 2015 at 4:08 pm

           Hi Corokia
           Pacific Islanders are ours so we’d make an exception for them 🙂

           I know: First there was one exception, then there were two, then there……
       • Robert Atack 5.1.2.2

         6 September 2015 at 4:29 pm

         I remember being at a foreshore and seabed meeting when Bill was the opposition leader, Mark Sainsbury asked me what I thought of it all, I said we needed to ban all immigration and place a machine gun @ every 100 meters around NZ, that truth went down like a ton of bricks )
       • Bill 5.1.2.3

         6 September 2015 at 7:21 pm

         I get kind of sick repeating this, but…population is a sustainability problem and nothing to do with climate change. Climate change is about accumulative emissions.
         • adam 5.1.2.3.1

           6 September 2015 at 8:45 pm

           Always someone with the Malthusian side track. Over that line of argument – I just wish people would start reading the science journals.
           • weka 5.1.2.3.1.1

             6 September 2015 at 8:47 pm

             I wish people would spend more time in their garden and adjust their politics accordingly 😉 Finite world, no way around that, no matter what it says in the science journals.
             • adam …

               6 September 2015 at 9:17 pm

               Finite yes, but a few extra mouths will make no difference. The Malthusian side track, has been the dire predictor of the collapse of civilisation for the last 200 years – It really is an idea built on sand.

               Women in control of their own bodies, now that will make a difference. Have Indigenous people stopped being shafted – that will make a difference.

               We need to change the economic system – that is the problem. It’s not all the people who are the problem, but the few who consume to much.
               • weka …

                 6 September 2015 at 9:30 pm

                 Women in control of their own bodies, isn’t that about population?

                 The Malthusian issue here isn’t about a few extra mouths, not sure why you have framed it like that. It’s about big jumps in populations that also want lifestyles that are not nor ever going to be carbon neutral.

                 I disagree with johnm’s fortress stance, and I kind of agree with Bill’s point about CC and population in theory, but I still don’t see us feeding and sheltering ourselves and mitigating CC and that’s not from a human perspective, that’s from an ecological one. Yes population is a sustainability problem, but that’s not divorced from CC, not least because there is only so many people that any landbase can sustain before the people need to start using fossil fuels. We’re well past that point globally and shifting to green tech won’t change that fact.
                 • adam …

                   6 September 2015 at 9:48 pm

                   We have the ability to grow and feed large populations without fossil fuels.

                   It’s the life style and economics which are the real problem in climate change. It’s consumption.

                   And yes women being in control of their bodies do have a effect on population, but I’m more interested in solving all these problems at once. Because we have no choice.

                   The plutocracy in charge are committed to profit, greed and the pursuit of capitalism at the expense of us, as a species.

                   Now I don’t give a dam about population arguments, nor the earth dying arguments. My argument is way more simple.

                   If people do not over throw the utter corrupt plutocracy who at present govern, and replace it with a more inclusive system – it’s humans who will die. Not the planet, us. The planet will go on, with us being a blip. We as a species need to decide, if we want to live or die.

                   Me I’m on the living side – it’s awesome!
                   • weka …

                     6 September 2015 at 10:01 pm

                     “We have the ability to grow and feed large populations without fossil fuels.”

                     What are you basing that on? What’s the upper limit population that NZ could support for food and shelter?

                     “It’s the life style and economics which are the real problem in climate change. It’s consumption.”

                     If we established a base line sustainability (i.e our use of resources doesn’t outstrip their ability to renew), there would still be an upper limit of how many people could live in any given space. In these conversations I don’t see any discussion of that other than that oh we can feed heaps of people. We don’t actually know that.

                     If people do not over throw the utter corrupt plutocracy who at present govern, and replace it with a more inclusive system – it’s humans who will die. Not the planet, us. The planet will go on, with us being a blip. We as a species need to decide, if we want to live or die.

                     This I utterly reject. We are facing mass extinction of multiple species and ecosystems. If the planet is a whole, then we are saying that we will cripple this organism via incredibly suffering and destruction but that’s ok because eventually it will recover, despite the timeframes of recovery being so far outside our own that we can barely conceive of them.

                     Worse, we are part of the planet. What you have just described sets us apart, and it’s that setting apart that got us into this situation in the first place, all the way back the people who told the story of Adam and Eve being kicked out of the garden. Every aspect of human societies that are non-egalitarian have their roots in this separation from nature.

                     I of course agree with the bit about humans needing to replace the organising systems they use, but those systems will continue to be self-defeating and destruction-promoting until they are nature based.
   • Paul 5.2

     6 September 2015 at 2:34 pm

     I do wonder whether the ‘too late, we’re doomed’ brigade are the new cover used by climate deniers.
     Can you not see that your standpoint suits them?
     • adam 5.2.1

       6 September 2015 at 9:19 pm

       I agree Paul – The Dooms day brigade just help keep the capitalist classes in power.
   • Draco T Bastard 5.3

     6 September 2015 at 3:03 pm

     Actually Gaia is not taking revenge she’d still harmonise things if she could.

     Nature doesn’t negotiate, doesn’t compromise, and doesn’t take prisoners.

     It’s a lesson we’ve failed to learn so far but are about to get an object lesson in.
6. Ad 6

   6 September 2015 at 1:00 pm

   Kelly-Ned good collection of instances there.

   Fig. 196 on the decade by decade bar graph of high rainfall events is particularly instructive.
7. johnm 7

   6 September 2015 at 4:30 pm

   Hi Corokia

   If you’re really interested here are some links which should convince you of the seriousness of our situation:

   The Arctic Methane Monster’s Rapid Rise. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wqErF9Rct8

   Methane Monster II ~ Demise of the Arctic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L19JBY0kNmo

   Arctic Death Spiral and the Methane Time Bomb. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoztduCa1uw

   Dr Natalia Shakhova East Siberian Arctic Shelf – Methane And Climate Change.
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVi1lotRLRU

   Will Humans Survive the current Sixth Great Extinction? http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150623-sixth-extinction-kolbert-animals-conservation-science-world/
8. Corokia 8

   6 September 2015 at 5:19 pm

   I’ve been listening to Radio Ecoshock for years, I know the situation is dire, but I refuse to side with those who suggest machine gunning those who seek refuge here. “Fortress NZ”, NO WAY. We are all humans on this planet the climate of which is being changed by the fossil fuel burning of a large group of us, no matter how bad it gets we should not give up on our humanity.
   • marty mars 8.1

     6 September 2015 at 10:08 pm

     + 1 I agree. Fuck Fortress NZ and all who want to sale in her and yes that was deliberate!
   • miravox 8.2

     6 September 2015 at 10:20 pm

     +1.
     Aside from the humanitarian imperative, there is the notion that we (as a nation) are complicit and profited so we bear the cost alongside everyone else (completely, not just throwing a bit of money it the pot).
9. Robert Atack 9

   6 September 2015 at 6:31 pm

   It’s pay back time mother fuckers
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR8GzZF9u74
   • weka 9.1

     6 September 2015 at 6:54 pm

     Wow, that is nasty. Death cult, fear mongering propaganda promo. Nature hates me? Way to go McPherson (although I have no idea if he endorses that video).
     • Bill 9.1.1

       6 September 2015 at 7:17 pm

       Heh – “nature hates me” or “being out to get me” kind of excludes me from being a part of nature. Must be a fallen angel afterall then. Who’d have thunk it!? 🙂

       Oh, hang on. Or was that song merely composed by someone exhibiting some degree of psychotic detachment?

       Jeez. There go my wings. 🙁
       • weka 9.1.1.1

         6 September 2015 at 7:25 pm

         That would be a whole nother conversation, the extent to which humans misperception of their place in nature is a mental illlness 😉

         If we’re not part of nature, we don’t have to care if it’s destroyed – we always have space or biodomes!
     • johnm 9.1.2

       6 September 2015 at 7:18 pm

       Hi Weka

       I don’t believe he’d endorse that video and its payback motherfuckers nastiness. Guy is a PHD Professor and gives his message in a very human and considerate way. What he has said is that if magically human industrial civilisation collapsed and our numbers declined dramatically along with our impact, the Earth’s biosphere would recover though with now abrupt climate change taking off by itself that may no longer be true. Our hubris has got us into this mess, not much can be done now. Most humans are innocent in this debacle, we’ve fallen into a “progress trap” unfortunately there’s no way out, hate and a condemning attitude just makes things more bitter.
       • weka 9.1.2.1

         6 September 2015 at 7:22 pm

         thanks John. I think McPherson also says it’s too late, which is his belief, but he presents it as fact and it’s damaging our attempts to make a difference.

         But I would be interested to know if McPherson did agree to his inclusion in the video. Doesn’t ‘featured’ in music generally mean that a guest artist appears? It would also be another confirmation that Robert’s referencing is suspect.
       • Robert Atack 9.1.2.2

         6 September 2015 at 8:32 pm

         Hi John
         This was guy on with Kim Hill, back when Guy had hope (probably his last ‘positive’ interview) back in 2013
         http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/2524324/guy-mcpherson-agrarian-anarchy
10. maui 10

    6 September 2015 at 7:33 pm

    For all those worrying about climate change, in my mind it is just a symptom of our industrialised world. If you want to do something about it then become un-industrialised and self sufficient as much as possible. Trying to convince others that they should reduce their energy output I think may be largely a waste of breath. Either our unsustainable economic system is going to de-industrialise us first or we can do it on our own terms.
    • Bill 10.1

      6 September 2015 at 8:22 pm

      We don’t have to be ‘un-industrial’.

      All we need to do is quit with stupid production and then stop driving the remaining industrial processes with fossil fuels while replacing market mechanisms with other, far more sensible ones. Market abolition ties in with ending stupid and purely profit driven production that has no social benefit.

      Self-sufficiency won’t give you much of a life span and is why we are co-operative little beasties. Non-exploitative inter-dependency, not self-sufficiency, is the way forward.

      Since (very approximately) 50% of emissions come from 1% of the people who are using fossil fuels, and if we’re wasting our breath trying to convince them to reduce their energy use, then we need to find new words and arguments that will convince them (I don’t think anyone has actually confronted that 1% with the consequences of their profligacy yet) or actions need to be developed and executed that will stop them.
      • maui 10.1.1

        6 September 2015 at 10:01 pm

        But our entire society is driven by fossil fuels, I think we will always find stupid ways to use them because literally everyone in society has vested interests in their use. They get people from A to B, they get food from around the world to within a few kilometres of where people live, people make a lot of money in their use.

        Our two leading political parties philosophy revolve around keeping society running the way it is, leaving about 10-15% of the vote wanting an oil reduced society.

        Bill McKibben has been protesting about climate change for what 25 years now? Though I respect the work he has done, and it probably has raised awareness for the cause, has it got us closer to reducing fossil fuel use in the western world?

        I agree that we have to cooperate in a self-sufficient lifestyle and that it’s going to be more successful doing it with other people. I’m not sure if telling others that they must go green is going to solve the problem. That’s why I think going green yourself and forming a self reliant fossil free local community is a way to show others how to fix the climate problem and hopefully that would snowball, otherwise you’re just relying on the politicians to make the calls and the changes.
        • Bill 10.1.1.1

          6 September 2015 at 10:48 pm

          Just coming back on one point.

          Yup – our entire society is powered by the burning of fossil fuels. And the best available science is telling us in no uncertain terms that if our governments are to front up to the accord they signed in Copenhagen back in 2009, then the entire planet must be fossil free in terms of energy by 2050. That’s for a very slim outside chance of temperature rise staying below 2 degrees.

          Under that scenario and in line with commitments signed up to at Copenhagen, the likes of NZ needs to be completely off fossil fuel energy by about 2040 or thereabouts.

          Of course, as humanity we can put off doing anything and lock three degrees (which we may already have achieved) or four degrees and/or non-anthropogenic warming (which we may also already have done) into the mix.

          Being optimistic, because I don’t think there’s any other sensible option, the reductions demanded by science will entail crashing the market economy. So maybe we should get on with things on that front if fossil is just too profitable to abandon? 😉
11. Draco T Bastard 11

    6 September 2015 at 11:05 pm

    Biosphere Collapse: The Biggest Economic Bubble Ever

    The real threat to human well-being is not that there is too little economic growth. Rather, it is that there is too much, and that we have overshot how much growth can occur without collapsing our shared environment.

    The industrial growth economy is ravaging natural ecosystems. Stocks of natural capital – including water, soil, old-growth forests, wild fish, etc. – are being pillaged to artificially inflate short-term economic growth numbers.

    Modern industrial capitalism’s narrow focus upon GDP growth as a measure of a society’s well-being utterly fails to account for the very real and detrimental costs of liquidating Earth’s natural life-support systems.
    • Robert Atack 11.1

      7 September 2015 at 11:48 am

      Yet for some strange reason the environmental political party – the Greens – support continued economic growth … for at least the next 65 years, via Kiwi Saver for the new born ?
      There is no such thing as a green economy – growth is growth.
12. save NZ 12

    8 September 2015 at 7:53 am

    +1 – MickeySavage and Naomi Klein.
    +100 for calling Abbott a criminal.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS