- Date published:
6:45 am, May 20th, 2015 - 134 comments
Categories: climate change, global warming, national, treasury - Tags: climate change, hiding the facts, scandal, through the looking glass, treasury predictions
The Nats are currently “consulting” we the people on NZ’s carbon emissions target. As covered yesterday, the consultation document is largely a vehicle for Nat spin and evasion, focusing on the costs of action to reduce our emissions. The costs of inaction are ignored. But we have Treasury estimates of the costs:
Failure to cut emissions could cost $34,000 per household
Treasury figures, released by the Sustainability Council today, show failing to take action to cut greenhouse gas emissions will cost between $2,000 and $34,000 per household, the Green Party said.
The Sustainability Council has obtained figures previously redacted from a Treasury climate briefing which shows that the cost of failing to take action to cut New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions is between $3 billion and $52 billion from 2021 to 2030. The Treasury report identifies the cost of buying credits to cover a target of a 5 percent reduction below 1990 levels for the 2021-2030 period at a price of between $10 and $165 a tonne.
The costs of doing nothing are phenomenal. The topic of many past and future posts here to be sure.
But in this post I want to focus on that phrase “previously redacted”. The redacted Treasury report is here. The Sustainability Council got the figures because they got access to a different version of the report:
Simon Terry of the Sustainability Council, who obtained a copy of the Treasury document with the figures, hoped the massive price tag would frighten the Government into action now.
So where did the different version of the report come from? Yesterday in Parliament:
Hon TIM GROSER (Minister for Climate Change Issues): The range of figures contained in the redacted part of that now rather dated document was between 0.3 and 0.8 percent of GDP …
Dr Russel Norman : In light of that answer, what exactly did Treasury get wrong when it said in this paper that the cost to the Government of not cutting our greenhouse gas emissions was up to $52 billion—as Treasury said in this paper?
Hon TIM GROSER : I think what Treasury got wrong was that it did not use sufficiently sophisticated software to conceal the redacted information.
What? So we the people only learned of Treasury projections on the costs of inaction on climate change because someone screwed up a redacted document! We were never meant to know. And National’s Minister for Climate Change Issues statement on the matter is that Treasury should have done a better job of hiding this vital information from the public.
National are running a public “consultation” process where they intended to hide the most important half of the story. We have become so used to scandals that this one will probably be lost in the noise. But it is huge. What the actual hell?
I am almost lost for words. The Government wants to consult with us what we should be doing about climate change but wanted to hide the cost of business as usual?
See my comment below.
utterly reprehensible – they have steered course for the iceberg at full steam ahead – revolution!!!
The National Party would not survive judicial review.
Dame Beverely Wakeham was on Kathryn Ryan this morning, talking about abuse of the OIA. Russell Norman asked a factual question as to why Treasury either made a mistake or changed its calculations. Tim Groser gave a facile answer, and did not answer the question. Is this questioning in Parliament subject to the OIA, and if so, can we take this to the Ombudsman?
I doubt very much you can take what is said in Parliament to any external body separate from Parliament. In fact to do so would be not be a good thing. The point of Parliament is that it should not have to answer to any other authority except itself. The means of holding it account outside this is via elections.
The Executive can also be held to account through Judicial Review in the Courts.
The Executive can be subject to judicial oversight but not Parliament. If Courts had jurisdiction over Parliament that would likely lead to a situation where politicians were restricted in what they could or would say in the House.
hence I wrote “also> It’s not “can be subject” but “is subject”.
please don’t feel you have to answer part of my questions first Gosman, there are heaps to you here from yesterday that people asked and you haven’t answered yet.
She was very soft in her suggestion of why there is a problem and why it’s taken so long and what the answer is.
The shame of it, the deceit – it’s just too painful. When will we ever be delivered from such arrogant fools?
Questions about Tim Groser. Did I hear correctly, some where, some time ago that he is actually a climate change denier, or at the very least, not entirely convinced that climate change is real and in full swing? Has Tim Groser had, in the past any sympathies with lobbyist (steel and concrete industries, agriculture) referred to in the Hot Air doco?
Finally, on the note of the sham public consultations, James Barber of Oil Free Wellington stated
“As if to illustrate the government’s contempt for this consultation process, the Minister of Energy and Associate Minister for Climate Change Issues, Simon Bridges, was in Australia yesterday, promoting New Zealand as an exploration destination for oil companies.”
Between Bridges and Groser what hope do we have?
PS: And how can Tim Groser be held to account for such deceit? Seriously.
Even if the figures are correct (which I very much doubt the 52 Billion dollar figure) this cost is because the Government has signed up to deals attempting to tackle Climate Change. The US for example won’t have any such liability as it is outside the system. Therefore it is incorrect to state the inaction on climate change is costing this figure when in fact it is the desire to do something about Climate Change that is costing this amount.
These figures are for purchasing carbon credits, which in terms of “doing something about climate change” is at the very low end of action, especially when it appears a lot of carbon credits being traded internationally are pure fabrications.
The cost if we don’t do anything about climate change is hard to measure, because it depends on your long-term weather forecasts – the costs of droughts, floods and extreme storms.
We just had a “1 in 100 year” weather event in the Wellington region. How much did that cost the country in direct damage, as well as lost productivity from people who couldn’t get to work?
We’ve just had two summers of bad droughts, how much did that cost the country in lost productivity?
Where did some one say the weather event was ‘1 in 100 years’
The rainfall records available now seem to indicate about the 2% probability in any year or ‘1 in 50 years’
“On the Kapiti Coast, MacKay’s Crossing received a total of 145mm over 24 hours – the equivalent of a 1-in-40 year event at this location.”
‘“In the Hutt Valley, 42mm of rain was recorded in Avalon in just one-hour – that’s estimated to be in excess of a 1-in-50 year event.”
You have to be careful picking out one weather event and calling it climate. The summer period just ended was lower rainfall than average in the Wellington region
So how you do reckon on this
“In the next year, New Zealand would have to announce its target for the 2020 to 2030 decade. The Treasury has said if the Government tried to use the same tactic of simply buying carbon credits to offset our rising pollution, this time the price tag would be in the billions – anywhere between $3 billion and $52b.”
when we are apparently “tackling” climate change? The above quote is from the link in Anthony’s Robins’ post. So, to recap, we are not doing anything, we are simply planning on buying carbon credits – the cost to us of the Government’s inaction on climate change.
The whole point of Carbon Credits is to enable nations to try and identify costs and benefits from Climate change mitigating strategies and to drive countries to come up with new innovations to reduce emissions. I do have a question for you though. If it is projected to cost 53 Billion dollars in total spend and lost economic growth to implement Climate change mitigating policies over the same period it will cost 52 Billion if we didn’t do anything about it would you still advocate that we adopt those policies?
Except they’re not really working out are they? Carbon credits are simply a capitalistic approach that allow polluters to continue polluting – there are no solutions in such a system – it’s the monetary equivalent of committing a crime and being let off for it, we simply pay to commit the crime.
In answer to your question: I don’t care what it costs in the short term to introduce legislation to meaningfully arrest our increasing carbon emissions – the price of not doing anything is far too high.
As Lanthanide has pointed out there is a cost we face with the consequences of living with severe weather due to climate change.
For example, (as pointed out) the rain storm that Kapiti Coast, Porirua, the Hutt and to a lesser degree Wellington experienced last week. The year long drought in Cheviot that has forced farmers to cull their stock or send them off for grazing elsewhere. The tornado that damaged commercial buildings and houses in Mt Mauganui last week. The southerly storm that brought down sea walls and tore houses apart in Wellington in June 2013. The tornado in Auckland that killed a man a few years ago. The drought we had in the lower north Island this summer.
The list goes on. There are economic consequences from such events.
Don’t expect a discount on your insurance premiums any time soon.
it’s the monetary equivalent of committing a crime and being let off for it
Actually, it’s probably more accurate to say committing a crime and being rewarded for it.
Good article thanks Drax. Here’s a little nugget for Gosman re carbon credits and the dubious notion that “The whole point of Carbon Credits is to enable nations to try and identify costs and benefits from Climate change mitigating strategies and to drive countries to come up with new innovations to reduce emissions.”
“Gwyn Prins, a professor at the London School of Economics, says the idea of raising the cost of carbon as a way of stimulating development of cleaner technologies is wrongheaded for two reasons. One, there is no guarantee higher prices will lead to the required innovations. And, two, voters, and therefore politicians, are likely to resist measures that increase energy prices.”
Yes but any method of trying to change to cleaner sources of energy on a rapid basis is likely to lead to higher energy prices. Can you name me one that doesn’t?
Not being an energy industry insider, a scientist or energy analyst I can’t tell what low cost ways we change to cleaner energy. Subsidies for those building energy efficient homes might be a very basic start, along with free public transport.
What I know is that I make an effort in my personal life to reduce the impact of my carbon footprint and keep it to a minimum, so in a fair world shouldn’t have to cover the costs for the polluting created by industry and agriculture.
You do realize that the subsidy itself is part if the cost don’t you?
You do realise that the fossil fuel industry is subsidised at the rate of $10,000,000 per minute don’t you?
That is a very silly definition of subsidised. However I’ve already stated that I think a Carbon tax would go a long way to pay for the cost the externalities of Fossil fuel use.
I agree to a certain extent. They are the modern day equivalent of Medieval Indulgances paid to the Catholic Church. I’d prefer a Carbon tax myself that was tied to a reduction in other taxes.
The issue is correctly pricing the cost of the externalities. Many of the events you mention (droughts and floods etc) have occured long before Human’s were even existed on the Planet. Simpy by calculati ng the cost of every one of these events will not give you an accurate estimation of costs.
Groan. Not the old “we’ve always had severe weather events”. Has the fact that they are more severe and more frequent and that we created that scenario not account for anything in your view?
Would you prefer we do nothing about addressing climate change? Is that what it comes down to for you? From your comments below you seem quite happy with an adapt or die approach.
It will be kinda hard to adapt to no rain (as we’ve already seen around the world) and no crops to grow, or floods wiping out those crops. No food, no life. So death it is.
Have you thought about where your food comes from, apart from the supermarket that is?
Ummm… I just stated I was in favour of a Carbon Tax so I’m not sure why you think I am in favour of doing precisely nothing about this topic beyond adapting to the changes as they happen (which will still need to be done no matter what option is adopted).
A carbon tax IS the equivalent of doing nothing.
I’m bored now and am reminded of why I don’t interact with RWers on line. I have enough of your type to deal with IRL.
Over and out.
How’s efforts to get wider action on tackling the impacts of climate change going for you?
Pretty good when you think most of the world is invested in fossil fuels and you look at the state of the coal industry right now.
The coal industry is depressed because of all the Shale Gas production from Fracking.
OR is depressed because of that and the alleged practice by LARGE producers to drop prices to send smaller ones to the wall….
Quite possibly correct. What is clear is it isn’t a result of protest movements by climate change activists.
That is exactly what was proposed by Clark and supported by the Green’s initially in 2003 – but the Arden and his idiots drove a tractor up the steps of Parliament and Clark lost her nerve.
It is exactly what the Green’s campaigned on in the last election.
Yes it was a good policy. Your point?
mM point is that it is still Green policy. It is the policy employed in British Columbia – resulting in a number of distinct benefits to the people of that province.
And? What is your point beyond that The Greens have a policy that I agree with?
An absurd comparison. The true cost will indescribable … unable to be measured in financial cost … through financial collapse, social breakdown, and the consequent dystopia that would follow.
But Gosman and the other blue shirts and their overlords won’t be living in these times.
Or at least they will hope to not live in these times.
This is what gets me about this whole discussion, man made or natural cycle of global warming, global cooling or weather weirding. Do they have enough money and resources to be insulated from the misery that will be ours once we run out of potable water, once we run out of food, once we or others run out of land (do to sea level rising).
Do they really believe they are so well off, and so far removed from society that they will not suffer.
I do find these views rather funny. It is the Secular Leftist version of Religious fundamentalists saying we are living in the end times of the Bible. That is not to discount there is a real protential for massive social dislocation if the impact of Climate change is larger than expected over the next 80 or so years. However there has been greater social dislocation in the past that mankind has adapted quite well to.
“Not buying carbon credits = doing precisely nothing …”
Your words Gosman
Just stop already
Where did I state that?
You didn’t, it was well known lefty “Rosie”, before she got “bored” and stomped away.
so Gosman, please tell us how are we adapting?
We are still using fossil fuels.
We are still driving our individual cars all by our lonesome selfs to work and back home.
We are still living in crappy houses that are not insulated and cost a heck a lot of energy to keep either warm or cold depending the season.
We grow cows, together with all the other nations, for one country alone, that is soon to also grow cows. Sustainable?
We pollute our drink water sources – fracking anyone?
We building motorways and train trecks next to a bit of beach….wellington anyone?
We are building motorways next to a bit of magrove ….auckland anyone?
We are building houses close to beaches….how is insurance going to handle any damages there?
We, society, could manage to adapt to what ever change is coming our way, but alas we have world governments that refuse to do anything other then what gets them money from the oil lobby, the coal lobby, the crab food lobby, and so on.
So Gosman, please one example where we are adapting so that you believe you and yours will be fine in about 25 years.
“However there has been greater social dislocation in the past that mankind has adapted quite well to.”
Could you please give some examples of the dislocation you have in mind here.
Mao Great leap forward, WWII, WWI, Taipeng Rebellion, The Seven Years War, The Black Death, The Little Ice age, Various volcanic erruptions causing massive disruptions to the world’s weather in a very short period of time.
Most of those didn’t affect “mankind”, they only affected localised populations. In the case of conventional wars, once the war ended a recovery occurred, there was no continuing change to the environment or ecosystem.
The Black Death was self limiting as resistance in the population became dominant, and to describe the resulting social effects as being an example of adapting quite well says a lot about your world view.
There’s debate about how global and extensive the LIA was. The cooling anomaly during that period was significantly less than the warming that we have already seen from AGW, and occurred over a much longer period.
During human history volcanic eruptions have only caused short term global climate disruptions. We haven’t adapted, a few years later we’ve resumed where we were.
Compare the above with what we know will result from our CO2 emissions. Several degrees warming that will continue for hundreds of years, not just affecting humans but all ecosystems.
Considering your dismissal of concern about the effects of AGW I think your end times barb would be better corrected to;
“It is the Deniers version of Religious fundamentalists saying we have dominion over all the natural world.”
Try and push that and see where it gets you in the wider public.
If the wider public were well informed then the issue would “push” itself. Which is why the Nats want to make sure we are not well informed, as per the post. You are arguing from and for ignorance.
If only people were as clever as you eh Rob. Then they would all support the policies you do. Must be hard living in a world where most voters are not as intelligent as you would like them to be.
What a snob you are Gossman. There is a difference between unintelligent and kept in the dark.
How are all the ‘uninformed’ prevented from accessing the same information you can rOb?
In part by the concerted efforts of you and your horrible kind.
“In part by the concerted efforts of you and your horrible kind.”
What? Cant they read, use a computer?
If you want to jump in on the question I asked of Rob Felix, at least you could attempt to answer it instead of that silly bullshit.
Tell me how it is that some people are being denied access to any information that Rob or anyone else is able to access?
Says the guy who dislikes many of National’s major policies so votes for ACT to allow National to govern.
Carbon Credits was an attempt to use the market system to get the greedy polluters to see a personal financial benefit to themselves to not pollute or mitigate. It has failed, mainly because the polluters used their money to lobby for watering down, and found polluting was cheaper.
” I very much doubt the 52 Billion dollar figure”
Do you have a consistent doubt of all figures that come out of Treasury? If yes, that must rouse you to action to have Treasury disbanded. If no, why not?
How do you decide which Treasury figures can be relied upon?
Not all figures but I suspect Treasury was asked to give a costing and they decided to give a broad range of figures including the 52 Billion as a very much worse case scenario (as in it might only have a 1% chance of occuring but they put it in to cover their backsides)..
“not all figures”
were the follow up questions too hard? There are heaps of questions from folks yesterday to you that you need to work through, if you are minded.
When people don’t have the full information or have incorrect information they make the wrong decisions. National have just been shown to be purposefully hiding necessary information from the people of NZ ensuring that the people of NZ would then make a wrong decision. A decision I can only suppose that they hoped would allow National to make legislation in favour of National’s business associates rather than for the benefit of New Zealand.
It fits pretty neatly with their anti-democractic principles and actions of recent years. Time to wake up sleep hobbits.
All NZ political parties are continuing to push economic growth, greater personal spending and increased consumption as the way ahead.
Which tells me that none of them accept, or can admit to, the painful physical realities we have set up for today’s school children to face in the next 30 or 40 years. Pretend and extend is alive and well in NZ politics, on all sides.
The Greens are trying to forge a future for all humanity, realising that sacrafices have to be made in terms of consumption levels, that the economy needs to be radically different, but trying to do that in a politically expedient way.
No they aren’t. There is nothing in The Greens policies that suggest what you state. They keep banging on about Green Growth and how we can have better lives and higher economic growth if we adopt their policy platform. There is no mention of sacrificing for the future of the Planet.
That’s because the unpleasant truth won’t result in them being elected.
The Green’s platform of green growth will set the country up to face the future much better than BAU will.
A debatable point quite obviously.
One which, interestingly enough, RWNJs such as yourself refuse to debate going straight for the ad hominems and hyperbole instead.
I haven’t resorted to ad hominem not hyperbole yet.
That is not hyperbole. That is an accurate breakdown of what many hard left climate activists make out the situation is like,
Do you deny people have made claims that Civilisation as we know it is about to collapse and we are headed for mass extinction events and a drop in Human population on a massive scale in the next couple of decades?
See Robert Atack’s comments below for an example of this thinking in action.
Also see first sentence of this comment for another example: http://thestandard.org.nz/national-literally-want-to-hide-the-costs-of-inaction-on-climate-change/#comment-1017771
No, but your behaviour on these kinds of posts frequently make me consider putting in a general rationing system for comments in a single post over time. I suspect that if you had a limit, you’d start writing a better class of comment.
Astroturfing a post demanding that other people do your work for you really doesn’t impress me, nor does quibbling about word meanings. Especially when I didn’t even have to look at the post to know that was what you did.
You have those behaviours when you really want to paper over the comments in a post.
Gosman, your propaganda is tiresome, and really rather sickening. You are myopic and trying to argue against the whole body of scientific literature about climate change. Please do not respond to something like ‘prove it’ as I direct you to numerous posts on this blog, or even you could venture to the IPCC and become informed yourself. You could also take a look at what NIWA is saying about the implications of climate change on NZ. I am sick to the teeth of climate change deniers……and sick to the teeth of those like you who say well we will adapt, or it’s not in our lifetime, so who cares.
Noone’s mentioned anything about the scientific literature about climate change here including me. Nice little Strawman you have constructed though.
Gosman, you stated:
“I do find these views rather funny. It is the Secular Leftist version of Religious fundamentalists saying we are living in the end times of the Bible.”
where you are directly equating the climate change argument with a belief set (or Christian religious fundamentalism).
I am pointing out that it is not a belief set, it is accepted scientific consensus. And, with due respect I do not want to engage further with you on this matter.
No, the view expressed that we are all going to die in some firery inferno caused by mad made climate change is the equivalent of Religious fundamentalists stating we are living in the end times predicted by the Bible. This is not even proposed as a worse case scenario in the IPCC reports. However if you can point to a firery inferno reference in one of them (or even people running out of land) I will stand corrected.
No they aren’t. There is nothing in The Greens policies that suggest what you state. They keep banging on about Green Growth and how we can have better lives and higher economic growth if we adopt their policy platform. There is no mention of sacrificing for the future of the Planet.
Stop telling lies Gosman, and go an educate yourself about what the GP really is. Start with their charter (emphasis added),
What policy do they have that suggests economic growth needs to be seriously curtailed?
I don’t know about the Greens Gos, but the scientific data suggests a year on year 5%+ reduction in economic growth is necessary to avoid dangerous levels of warming. In other words, effective abolition of the market economy.
No scientific data that is widely accepted is advocating that course of action as far as I am aware. However I am willing to be shown to be wrong on this. Please provide a link.
Basically, energy consumption needs to crash by 10% or more. That’ll do you know what to the economy, including developing economies that financial markets are counting on for growth.
Sure. The date is widely accepted. Those that disagree with the implications of the data offer no rational alternative.
And this is why the wider left is on the back foot on getting action on tackling climate change. Not one Green MP would be caught dead supporting the views expressed in that Blog.
This is just the reality of what we need to do, the Green approach is more palatable to the public because it involves reforming our current economic system. Not drastically rethinking it, which has to happen when we finally address the reality of what the world faces.
I don’t believe that the NZ Green Party offers any kind of a solution. The wider left (iethe left that inhabits the real world) is certainly hobbled by the general timidity of those who tout themselves as the parliamentary representatives of the left.
That scientists of the calibre of Anderson and Bows-Larkin – allowing for the fact they advise government (Do they listen?) – have to run a fucking blog in an attempt to get word out there says it all.
That’s because you have NFI Gos. It’s in the literature if you care to have a look and it is the basis why no govt is prepared to take the lead and actually commit to doing anything about it. It scares the pants off them. All Govt’s it seems are wedded to the endless growth myth of perpetuated by the high priests of the religion of the Hidden Hand.
Actually Green Economic theory is based on sustainable economics which does not involve endless growth.
you can read about it here:
Then The Green party should be honest and open about it.
They are – but the Media don’t want to know.
Beyond some typical Green PR puffery there is nothing in that link of yours suggesting they want less economic activity. A lot of talk about a ‘Smarter’ and ‘Sustainable’ economy but not a ‘Smaller’ one.
“What policy do they have that suggests economic growth needs to be seriously curtailed?”
False framing in a number of ways. “Seriously curtailed” buys into the right wing narrative of the GP wanting to take us back to the dark ages, as if the mighty economic growth is something that has to be held back against its will, and as if there are no other models of managing society that support wellbeing. It also misses the importance of moving to a post-carbon world, the imperative of that (we will in fact have no choice), and the crucial aspect of transition. You can’t get there from here in one jump.
Reread Sans Cle’s original point (which talks about pragmatics), then go look up the GP policy for yourself and see which ones are about transitioning. Bear in mind GP intent is spread out across policy and policies interrelate. I’m happy to have a conversation with you about this, but I’m not doing your homework for you.
and no response from Gosman
There is no question directed to me here.
You don’t need a question to reply Gosman, as you have just demonstrated.
3/10 for evasion tactics, you can do better.
I think your whole comment is nonsense and couldn’t be bothered to engage with it. It is basically taking the view that it is for individuals to understand the Greens policy rather than the Greens to articulate them in a sunsinct and clear manner.
No, it’s not. The Greens articulate their policy and values very clearly. I just suggested that you go read their actual website instead of telling lies about them here. I can understand why you wouldn’t be bothered doing that, because then it’d be much harder to tell the lies.
“It is basically taking the view that it is for individuals to understand the Greens policy rather than the Greens to articulate them in a sunsinct and clear manner.”
Well done weka, you got the champion of individual responsibility to eschew individual responsibility for his decision-making.
As an aside, Gosman are you saying that because someone like you makes a statement without basis in fact about what the Greens stand for, your statement magically becomes the truth because they didn’t correct you? That as a person who wants to correct wrong-headed thinking that is a little, well, wrong-headed?
You don’t answer all questions put to you so that can hardly be your criteria for replying. And you address posts that don’t ask you a question. I am flattered that you respond to my posts so quickly (even if you don’t always address what they stated) but there are people with far better questions of you, than me, who deserve your time.
I haven’t seen any here. As stated Weka is expecting me to digest all of The Greens philosophy to understand where they stand in relation to manged contraction of the economy. Any Political party that expects someone to do that doesn’t really understand the point of politics.
No, weka is expecting you to stop making definitive statements about a policy you haven’t read.
It is quite simple.
Where in all The Greens pronouncements around the economy does it mention that economic activity (as measured by traditional methods) will have to reduce significantly and that their policies will be looking to manage this process?
Any political party would expect that someone who asks a variety of nuanced questions on a range of issues is competent enough to read the policy for themselves. Similarly, any political party would understand that anyone repeating questions after the false framing has already been pointed out probably does not really want an answer.
“There is no mention of sacrificing for the future of the Planet.”
Rather than acknowledge a wrongful basis for your statement, you focus on another statement and assume that everyone reading and therefore replying was only replying to that part of your post. In some places that would be considered arrogant or wrong headed thinking.
Ummm… that was my main point. The Green Party is not making a zero growth or a managed contraction in the economy clear in any of the policy pronouncements they have made since they have been in Parliament (as far as I am aware).
You seem to be stating that people should read between the lines but the question is why aren’t they more upfront if that is the case.
“No they aren’t. There is nothing in The Greens policies that suggest what you state. They keep banging on about Green Growth and how we can have better lives and higher economic growth if we adopt their policy platform. There is no mention of sacrificing for the future of the Planet.”
I am not stating people need to read between the lines at all. I am stating that if you are permitted to only partially answer people’s comments (and you clearly are) then others need only address aspects of yours, and one aspect of yours was
“There is no mention of sacrificing for the future of the Planet.”
If you wanted to make a “main point” leave out the other points.
“You seem to be stating that people should read between the lines but the question is why aren’t they more upfront if that is the case”
This has already been explained. You can’t get to a stready state economy from the current one in one leap. You have to transition in stages, over time. That’s what the GP are promoting, transition.
I’m willing to bet you haven’t even read GP policy, including economic policy. This is why I suggested that you do. You won’t find a policy statement saying that we have to have a zero growth economy starting 2017 because there is no way to get there from here. What you will see is the steps to that eg in the economic policy they talk about changing how we measure growth, including
“[developing] a set of natural resource accounts that will measure the degradation or restoration of resources such as forests, clean water and energy reserves. We will use these to ensure that economic management achieves a decrease in the overall rate at which resources are turned into waste.”
That’s transition away from perpetual growth that we can’t sustain. I suppose it requires a certain level of ecological literacy to understand that in more detail, but on the face of it it’s clear. Have tools to measure what we do with our resources with the aim of reducing waste (i.e. live within our means).
But really, if you genuinely want to understand, you do have to look at GP policy as a whole, and then you can see that the principles I linked to yesterday about degrowth are being supported across the board. However I suspect what you really want is something that affirms your inaccurate view and the lies you’ve been telling about the GP.
Then why were they launching new policy using PR shots of brand new sporty $80,000 electric and hybrid cars?
link and I’ll tell you.
IF this matters to you, why on earth are you attending LP regional meetings? I can’t see any party that stands for what you want, and LP is very far away from it.
Some people subscribe to the views of specific political parties and might even join and support those parties in an active way. Of course this is a valid, though arse-backwards view of ‘true’ democracy. Where it is the people who tell the leadership which way to go.
I understand that. Kind of the mole within perspective? To try and be change within.
If you look at the history of the NZ Labour Party, people like John A Lee and more recently like Jim Anderton finally left/were pushed out from the Labour Party.
But their presence and their views forced Labour further to the left of the spectrum than it would otherwise have been, and pressured the party to seriously discuss policy ideas that its own conservative and capitalist nature would have otherwise considered too radical to implement.
Without Lee, the original state housing programme as we know it today would have been a far more privatised formula from the start. And without Anderton, we would not have Kiwibank.
What Labour needs today is a thousand John and Jacqui A. Lees joining the party, and a thousand Jim and Jane Andertons joining as well. The last thing we need are more ‘YES’ types enamoured with supporting the party establishment just because.
By the way, John A. Lee had close associations with the branch of the Labour Party I am a member of now – the Andersons Bay Peninsula branch (Dunedin South).
they do have people and the environment first in their priorities though Gosman, rather than the economic system currently operating at one…
They aren’t being honest and up front about changing the emphasis away from economic growth though.
I wish they would suggest that aiming for economic growth as a silver bullet is a fallacy which is shown to not deliver much of what is promised by those extolling it, yes.
Do you wish ACT and National were honest and upfront about all their goals for us and their intention to change their goals at will (always following an election of course)? And if yes, why do you keep voting for one to prop up the others dishonesty?
Loving the choice of picture for this article, Anybody else notice the perforations ?
Those were great tabs if i remember correctly 🙂
I was unaware of that context when choosing the image. But it fits!
“Not buying carbon credits = doing precisely nothing …”
Just stop already
How does Gosman manage to make this an argument about himself and climate change, rather than a comment list on the Government’s lying to the public and trying to duck its responsibilities in the biggest question of our lifetime?
Don’t engage with the obvious distraction techniques the right wing uses, and instead stick to the topic of a deceitful and evasive government.
It’s no less than either of them deserves.
Gosman has appointed himself a fixer of wrong-headed thinking, a goal he pursues with absolute rigger in all people except himself.
” has appointed himself a fixer of wrong-headed thinking”
Bit of irony there Tracey.
“Rigueur”? maybe “Vigour” ?, A Rigger is a well paid skilled labourer.
Gosman has written more than a quarter of the comments in this thread.
It’s a consensus of informed opinion vs one loud lobbyist determined to create the illusion of debate without engaging in any of the substance.
Just as it always is when climate is discussed.
Not sure why ‘we’ pick on National for its lack of Climate Change action/truth ?
Every other politician is equally to blame for the general ignorance out here or in parliament.
The Greens latest insane/suicidal idea of Kiwi Saver for newborns is a fine example of business as usual bullshit.
The true cost of our ‘climate inaction’ is near term extinction, and I’m sure treasury, the greens, National, etal are not going to tell us that.
All we are doing now is discussing the arrangements of the deckchairs, the ice burg is well and truly in the rear view mirror, we have water lapping our arse holes, and all we do is discuss how to make an ergonomic bailing bucket.
Politicians and their minions simply can not tell the truth, and most people at this stage are 100% happy with that, hence National etc don’t give a fuck really, as long as fools keep voting they have done their job.
Having no children, enjoying hot showers, regular meals, a warm safe bed, and medication that keeps me ‘comfortable’, I’m all for keeping the BS flowing. The reverse, though unavoidable, is best put off for as long as possible.
Its such a bugger methane is going to put an end to these comfortable arrangements.
I know this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9PshoYtoxo is way to much for the politicians and their fellow trough feeders, but some of you might have the 90 minute attention span this talk requires. Of interest to us maybe is @ 44.30 ish Jennifer talks about the 99 gas flairs they found last year off the coast of Gisborne, now ‘we’ have 766 in the same area? shhhh don’t tell anyone 😉
I’m not sure how deriding the Greens helps the situation which appears to be what some do (even if inadvertently). If Green policy were adopted more widespread (as it has by LP and Nats in the past) then the shift to where we need to be is made a tad easier. Lambasting the Greens plays into the hands of both LP and Nats who have no intention of taking us anywhere but closer to the fire.
NOW, were someone like you and those who agree with you to set up a party, do some mass media blasting you could make the Greens look reasonable….
Lets say I’m not deriding the Greens so much as pointing out how stupid people are to think the Greens have any answers and are telling the truth.
I’m just using the bullshit coming from the Greens as an example of how sucked in the general dumb Green voter is.
I’m sure most people are in agreement (well 90 od % of scientists are) that this system can’t function for much longer, let alone the 65 – 70 years a born today child/new Kiwi Saver investor would hope it would.
Yet the Greens are promoting the idea, of not only encouraging increasing overpopulation, but increasing carbon emissions, by maintaining the very growth based system that has killed this human friendly environment ie Kiwi Saver ffs???
We can not invest our way out of this, all investing does is increase global warming, it increases/finances all global commercial activity, which increases C02, CH4, N20, etc, etc.
Its just unfortunate we are here now.
The King has no clothes.
And you can not reason with nature )
FFS Robert, you HAVE already told everyone here about your belief that doomsday is imminent and that everyone must stop breeding now. Excuse us while we actually discuss the subject of the post which is the deliberate policy of National hiding information related to the issue of climate change (that they are currently consulting on) and the incredible arrogance of Groser when challenged on it. Yes, we and our kids and grandkids are all heading for collapse of civilisation, could you just STFU because some of us would like to have a go at slowing the descent.
Good luck with that
I’m not responsible for these facts – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcx-nf3kH_M
Its time people woke up to the fact this government is not a government for the people but an interest group that represents rich parasites who do not care how they make money as long as they make money. If that reality is accepted everything they do makes perfect sense.
You have until 2017 to convince people 😉
Its up to people to make their own minds up Gosman. To be honest it makes little difference to me. Its my daughter and the upcoming generation I’m thinking about.
So do you