National thinks the best approach to climate change is adaption

Written By: mickysavage - Date published: 9:10 am, April 9th, 2014 - 90 comments
Categories: climate change, global warming, national - Tags:

It seems that National has a new response to how to deal with climate change, and that is that all we have to do is adapt.

Released hot on the heels of the IPCC’s latest report was this press release from Climate Change Minister Tim Groser.

“The latest IPCC report is another useful contribution to climate change science that will help inform our climate policy. We can use the information in the report to help ensure that New Zealand’s economy, environment and society are resilient to the impacts of climate change.”

It is telling that Groser thinks that the economy is more important than anything else, and that it is something distinct from the environment.

“The report backs the view that adaptation is an important part of dealing with climate change that cannot be ignored.

“While much of our focus is on getting international agreement on reducing emissions, some change can’t be avoided so we must be prepared to adapt.”

National thinks that we can fail to live up to our own obligations to reduce emissions yet persuade the major polluting nations to change.

The response is frankly pathetic. Even in overseas nations with conservative governments there is recognition that urgent action is required.

In England the Tory Minister of Climate Change’s department has said:

The science has clearly spoken. Left unchecked, climate change will impact on many aspects of our society, with far reaching consequences to human health, global food security and economic development.”

Even in Tony Abbott’s Australia there appears to be some understanding of the issue. Greg Hunt, the Minister for the Environment has said:

Australia is committed to addressing the challenges through direct and practical policy measures. This includes reducing emissions by five percent from 2000 levels by 2020. Central to achieving this is the creation of the Emissions Reduction Fund,” said Hunt.

“The five percent target represents serious action and is comparable with the action being taken by other countries when compared using 2005 as the benchmark starting point.”

Although the target is artificial and not nearly enough at least there is not talk about Australia adapting to climate change. And this is from an administration whose Prime Minister has downplayed the potentially devastating effects climate change could have on the Lucky Country by claiming that Australia had always had droughts.

It is not as if there is no financial justification for reducing emissions. The Stern Report estimated that it would cost at least 5% of GDP each year if no action was taken whereas the cost of action would equate to 1% of GDP. Stern subsequently said that he had got it wrong and had underestimated how bad climate change was.

And the cost locally would be horrendous. Much of our urban development is on the coast and transportation links such as motorways and rail lines would be submerged by a sufficient increase in sea levels. And the increasing frequency of drought and flood would ravage our horticultural industry.

Groser was asked yesterday in Parliament about his comments on climate change. He confirmed that without changes over the next decade the country’s output of greenhouse gasses will increase by 48%. He also said “New Zealand is extremely well placed, over a very long period of time of 100 years, to make the necessary adaptation, provided we have sensible policies in place.”

I do hope that National may come to its senses and decide to do something to address the causes of climate change but I am afraid that we should not hold our breath. It seems that we are no longer even a fast follower, more of an international slacker thinking we can ride climate change out. And if National is dependent on a party that thinks that doing something about climate change is irresponsible moral exhibitionism and that poor countries should be responsible for addressing climate change then the prospects of New Zealand doing something tangible to address the worlds most pressing environmental problem are bleak.

90 comments on “National thinks the best approach to climate change is adaption ”

Comments are now closed

geoff 1

9 April 2014 at 9:15 am

Typical privileged elites response to climate change. Won’t effect them (they’ll be dead) so screw everyone else.

That’s National’s motto really… fuck you, I got mine.
- Draco T Bastard 1.1
  
  9 April 2014 at 9:41 am
  
  +1
  - JonL 1.1.1
    
    9 April 2014 at 9:50 am
    
    +2
    - Jenny 1.1.1.1
      
      9 April 2014 at 5:28 pm
      
      +3
- mickysavage 1.2
  
  9 April 2014 at 12:44 pm
  
  Also they are great at penny pinching today even though it will result in a considerable increase in price in the future.
- aerobubble 1.3
  
  9 April 2014 at 4:05 pm
  
  Foot down on accelerator, and now foot down on clutch, why not try the brakes ffs.
Corokia 2

9 April 2014 at 9:26 am

I just heard Andrew Little talking about Labour and mining. As per Labour’s usual stance, he spoke of Labour only supporting mining if appropriate environmental protections were in place (not direct quote, no access to the audio just now). No mention of climate change from Mr Little. You’d have a lot more credibility when posting about climate change MS if your party would acknowledge it when talking about mining. Shit, I’m sick of Nat cheerleaders saying Cunliffe is 2 faced, but the whole damn party is 2 faced if you express concern about climate change on one hand and then don’t mention it when you talk about mining.
- Tracey 2.1
  
  9 April 2014 at 9:33 am
  
  maybe, but if you give a shit about climate change mining etc and the environment you vote Green… National leaves it to ACT to be out on the edge more while it reals in the mythical middle nzer. Perhaps labour is doing the same? Isn’t MMP a chance to not be all things to all people?
  
  IF Greens get over 10%, then they had better get some concessions…
  - Mainlander 2.1.1
    
    9 April 2014 at 4:35 pm
    
    Vote Cunliffe get Norman, that might have a bit to do with the fact no-one will let those muppets anywhere power even Helen C had more sense than that, but hey if they keep pushing the global warming oops i mean cooling, damn its climate change now, then eventually they might fool the average middle NZr but dont hold your breath we arnt as silly as you might think
    - Tracey 2.1.1.1
      
      9 April 2014 at 4:40 pm
      
      except your post just proved you are stupid
    - Richard Christie 2.1.1.2
      
      9 April 2014 at 10:38 pm
      
      Vote Cunliffe get Norman
      
      Sounds good to me.
- mickysavage 2.2
  
  9 April 2014 at 10:29 am
  
  Fair enough Corokia. Following are passages from the party’s current policy platform:
  
  “The most critical sustainability issue is climate change. It poses a severe threat to the planet and to the future of humans and other species. Labour says that climate change must be tackled urgently and effectively, by way of a low-carbon economy in New Zealand and a comprehensive international climate change treaty.”
  
  And further …
  
  “Climate change—Labour wants New Zealand to honour its international commitment to reduce our gross greenhouse gas emissions through good science and responsible behaviour by companies and individuals. We will encourage the development of mitigation technologies and industries, such as forestry. We will make sure our Emissions Trading Scheme has environmental credibility as an ‘all gases all sectors’ scheme, ultimately free from subsidies to greenhouse gas polluters.
  
  4.13 Labour recognises the need for New Zealand to prepare for, and mitigate, the likely environmental, economic, and social impacts of climate change, and will take action to plan for this based on scientific advice.”
  
  Details are at https://www.labourparty.org.nz/sites/default/files/New%20Zealand%20%20Labour%20Party%20Policy%20Platform.pdf
  - Poission 2.2.1
    
    9 April 2014 at 12:55 pm
    
    Climate change—Labour wants New Zealand to honour its international commitment to reduce our gross greenhouse gas emissions through good science and responsible behaviour by companies and individuals. We will encourage the development of mitigation technologies and industries, such as forestry. We will make sure our Emissions Trading Scheme has environmental credibility as an ‘all gases all sectors’ scheme, ultimately free from subsidies to greenhouse gas polluters.
    
    NZ commitment to reduction in specific gases such as the montreal protocol (the reduction in the GWP) is around a factor of 5 greater then commitments from the Kyoto protocol.
    
    http://www.mfe.govt.nz/environmental-reporting/atmosphere/levels-stratospheric-ozone-indicator/report-card-2012.html
- geoff 2.3
  
  9 April 2014 at 10:43 am
  
  The reality is that Andrew Little has represented miners through the EPMU for years so he’s not about to turn his back on those people by making, essentially, anti-mining comments.
  I agree with you to a certain extent that Labour have a problem here in much the same way as they do with the TPPA.
  But at least Labour supposedly have a long-term plan to transition to a carbon free economy.
  
  National’s plan is….???? Oh yeah that’s right…’Go fuck yourself, I got mine’
  - Corokia 2.3.1
    
    9 April 2014 at 1:41 pm
    
    We don’t have a workforce of off-shore oil and gas drilling workers, so Andrew Little’s loyalty to coal miners does not stack up as an argument when talking about off shore drilling.
    
    Yes, Labour mention “environmental impacts” when they talk about off shore drilling, but they don’t usually mention the biggest one which is climate change, so until your party does that Micky, you really don’t have much credibility when you complain about National. How about you have a word with Andrew Little ,eh.
    - geoff 2.3.1.1
      
      9 April 2014 at 1:57 pm
      
      Andrew Little’s electorate is New Plymouth.
      - weka 2.3.1.1.1
        
        9 April 2014 at 3:06 pm
        
        So have I got this right? Labour develop policy with input from members, and then individual MPs can pretty much do what they like so long as they don’t go completely against the policy?
        
        geoff 2.3.1.1.1.1
        
        9 April 2014 at 5:15 pm
        
        Don’t ask me, weka, I don’t know. I only back Labour in so far as we need them to get rid of National. Some of their policies are alright but some of them are 3rd way naffness. I expect their policies are going to become more appealing now they’ve got Clint.
        
        http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9914693/Today-in-politics-Tuesday-April-8
        
        I wonder if the Greens are a bit fucked off about that?
        
        Draco T Bastard …
        
        9 April 2014 at 6:44 pm
        
        Maybe the Greens suggested it as they looked at Labour sliding down the polls.
        
        geoff …
        
        9 April 2014 at 7:52 pm
        
        facetious?
        
        Draco T Bastard …
        
        9 April 2014 at 8:28 pm
        
        Probably 😈
      - Corokia 2.3.1.1.2
        
        9 April 2014 at 7:34 pm
        
        “Andrew Little’s electorate is New Plymouth. and…..???
        On one hand we have Micky, from the Labour party, concerned about climate change and writing a post about it (good on you Micky)
        On the other hand on the radio today we hear that Labour may need the Nats to pass mining legistlation. Not all mining is for fossil fuels, but if Labour supports new oil and gas drilling then they will be adding to the problem of climate change.
        2 different messages coming from Labour, so I suggest A talks to B. So A is not B’s electorate chairman (or whatever), gee, can’t expect them to communicate according to Geoff- duh.
        
        geoff 2.3.1.1.2.1
        
        9 April 2014 at 7:51 pm
        
        I believe New Plymouth is home to the country’s largest oil & gas industry.
        I’m not saying there aren’t inconsistencies, Corokia. I’m just pointing out why I think those inconsistencies are there.
      - Tarquin 2.3.1.1.3
        
        10 April 2014 at 12:27 pm
        
        Andrew Little does not have an electorate. The people of New Plymouth didn’t want him. He is a list M.P only.
Tracey 3

9 April 2014 at 9:29 am

But… but…but adapt to what? Hosking and Hide say if it gets cold or the weathergirl can’t predict the weather in 5 five days there can be NO climate change.

Will provide links if anyone doubts.

national has been conspicious in their desire to NOT lead on anything. They want to wait for everyone else first, and they know that means do nothing for a long time…

kyoto was an example. The case against Japan for whaling was another, plain packaging is another…

The song for this Government must be

I will follow you
Follow you wherever you may go
There isn’t an ocean too deep (Anardarko)
A mountain so high it can keep me away

I must follow you
Ever since you touched my hand I know (Obama and the USA)
That near you I always must be
And nothing can keep you from me, you are my destiny

I love you, I love you, I love you
And where you go I’ll follow, I’ll follow, I’ll follow
You’ll always be my true love, my true love, my true love
From now until forever, forever, forever

I will follow you, follow you wherever you may go
There isn’t an ocean too deep
A mountain so high it can keep
Keep me away, away from my love

I love you, I love you, I love you
And where you go I’ll follow, I’ll follow, I’ll follow
You’ll always be my true love, my true love, my true love
From now until forever, forever, forever

I will follow you, follow you wherever you may go
There isn’t an ocean too deep
A mountain so high it can keep
Keep me away, away from my love

And where you go I’ll follow
srylands 4

9 April 2014 at 9:47 am

You have missed the important point that the marginal cost of reducing emissions in New Zealand is very high compared to other countries. However future technology offers some promise in agricultural emissions, and there is considerable research underway.

I agree that New Zealand should devote resources to mitigation, but the world (and New Zealand) would benefit from us helping other countries reduce emissions (and we have already done some of this). Why should New Zealand citizens pay $15 per tonne for mitigation in New Zealand when the cost of reducing emissions in Ukraine is $1 per tonne. That is why the UNFCCC encourage international emissions trading. It has been gamed by financiers, but it still offers the best hope of cost effective mitigation. Otherwise, we are impoverishing ourselves for no global gain. 10 years of effort in New Zealand could be wiped out by 1 week of emissions growth in China – it is stark as that.

So by all means lets devote more effort to mitigation, but adopt an international perspective. It will achieve greater reductions at much lower cost.
- srylands 4.1
  
  9 April 2014 at 9:51 am
  
  Oh and BTW Adaptation has always been a very important part of the UN’s efforts on climate change.
  
  http://unfccc.int/adaptation/items/4159.php
- Draco T Bastard 4.2
  
  9 April 2014 at 10:08 am
  
  You have missed the important point that the marginal cost of reducing emissions in New Zealand is very high compared to other countries.
  
  You’ve missed the point that it’s far more expensive not to change. Get rid of the fossil fuel generation and use only renewables gets rid of the cost of importing fuel removing a permanent cost. Of course, a few people will miss out on the profits that those permanent costs provide but I and the rest of the country can live with that.
  
  It has been gamed by financiers, but it still offers the best hope of cost effective mitigation.
  
  No it doesn’t – it just provides a system that can be gamed for profit just like the present financial system.
  
  Otherwise, we are impoverishing ourselves for no global gain.
  
  Wrong again. We actually increase our wealth as we learn from needs to be done.
  - srylands 4.2.1
    
    9 April 2014 at 10:23 am
    
    Each of your points are dead wrong. Your approach would result in a global failure to reduce emissions, and turn New Zealand into an economic basket case.
    
    The benefits of international emissions trading are so obvious, it is depressing in 2014 to have to repeat them here. New Zealand – under both Labour and National Governments has tirelessly advocated for emissions trading since 1997. That aint going to change.
    
    You really need to look at the evidence. I suggest you start with the work of MOTU.
    
    http://www.motu.org.nz/research/detail/international_emissions_trading
    
    It is a waste of time discussing this of you are going to act like a fool.
    - Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.1
      
      9 April 2014 at 10:38 am
      
      Each of your points are dead wrong.
      
      Nope
      
      Your approach would result in a global failure to reduce emissions, and turn New Zealand into an economic basket case.
      
      Only if no one else did the same and they really haven’t got a choice and the present system has already turned NZ into an economic basket case. Doing something that will increase our knowledge and get us off the limited supply of fossil fuels will actually make us economic as we begin to live within our resource base. It will also have the benefit of saving our environment.
      
      The benefits of international emissions trading are so obvious, it is depressing in 2014 to have to repeat them here. New Zealand – under both Labour and National Governments has tirelessly advocated for emissions trading since 1997.
      
      Even as a child I understood that a million people can be wrong. Popularity with authority figures doesn’t prove that it’s a workable system as you pointed out.
      - Tracey 4.2.1.1.1
        
        9 April 2014 at 2:23 pm
        
        Multi-sector NZ risk assessment would allow “Wise Response”
        
        Wednesday, 9 April 2014, 12:13 pm
        Press Release: 350 Aotearoa
        Multi-sector NZ risk assessment would allow for “Wise Response”
        
        100 notable New Zealanders are backing a call to government for a quantitative risk assessment of how and exactly where New Zealand is exposed to key global issues across economic security, energy and climate security, environmental security, business continuity and social well-being.
        
        The nationwide appeal, called Wise Response has also been signed by thousands around the country, and will be presented to Parliament on Wednesday 9 April.
        
        Climate change group 350 Aotearoa is one of a number of groups that strongly supports the multi-issue call.
        
        350 Aotearoa Chairperson, Aaron Packard, one of the first 100 who signed-on to launch the call, says “For New Zealand, it’s key that we assess climate change risks not only in terms of direct impacts on our coastlines and agriculture, but also understand the larger risks that we’re exposed to as part of a global economic and political system, from global energy and economic security, to risks of increased global conflicts, and immigration impacts. http://wiseresponse.org.nz/
- Tracey 4.3
  
  9 April 2014 at 10:41 am
  
  “It has been gamed by financiers,”
  
  That fairly describes the planet, and all the people on it.
- Tracey 4.4
  
  9 April 2014 at 10:42 am
  
  Do you agree that impetus MUST come from Government via regulation or other means? I say this because companies have tended to see the costs of cleaning up as not worth it, and an encroachment on their bottom line, so have preferred to chuck it in the ground or the river…
Bill 5

9 April 2014 at 9:48 am

He also said “New Zealand is extremely well placed, over a very long period of time of 100 years, to make the necessary adaptation, provided we have sensible policies in place.”

100 years!? Discounting the effects of any possible or likely ‘runaway’ warming, that’s an average global increase of temperature, of somewhere between 4 and 6 degrees C. There is absolutely no fucking possible adaptation that will preserve our biological integrity in that kind of environment. I mean, christ, putting aside the biological factors involved in a 4-6 degrees C scenario, the fact is we can’t even adapt infrastructure to deal with the mounting effects of the current 0.8 degrees C!
- Draco T Bastard 5.1
  
  9 April 2014 at 10:10 am
  
  a 4 to 6 degree rise in global temperature will see 95%+ of life on Earth eliminated. That could include humanity.
  - RedLogix 5.1.1
    
    9 April 2014 at 10:39 am
    
    Well if you are rich enough, no doubt you could adapt to that too.
- Matthew Hooton 5.2
  
  9 April 2014 at 10:58 am
  
  Where do you get 4-6 degrees C from?
  The IPCC models report a range of 0.3-4.8 degrees increase by 2081 to 2100 period compared with 1986-2005.
  With at least 66% probability, they think temperatures will rise by at least 1.5 or 2 degrees (depending on the model) but it unlikely (less than 33% probability) to rise by more than 4 degrees.
  With at least 66% probability, sea level rises are forecast to fall within the range 26 to 82cm.
  Read from page 19 of http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf
  - Bill 5.2.1
    
    9 April 2014 at 11:08 am
    
    The 4 – 6 degrees by by 2014 isn’t what is projected. It’s worse then that. Sit back and relax while Kevin Anderson, Deputy Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research brings you up to speed Matthew ….http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RInrvSjW90U
    - srylands 5.2.1.1
      
      9 April 2014 at 11:23 am
      
      This is the guy who turned up at one of the COP meetings saying he had cut back on washing to save energy and who argued that countries should abandon economic growth.
      
      Yes I can see the New Zealand Government telling people to stop washing and BTW we are going to have a permanent recession.
      
      Honestly you are dreaming. Get real.
      - Draco T Bastard 5.2.1.1.1
        
        9 April 2014 at 11:35 am
        
        This is the guy who turned up at one of the COP meetings saying he had cut back on washing to save energy and who argued that countries should abandon economic growth.
        
        Ah, so someone who understands that we need to live within physical limits.
        
        Yes I can see the New Zealand Government telling people to stop washing and BTW we are going to have a permanent recession.
        
        The only reason why we would get a recession from a stable state economy is because our banking system hoovers up all the wealth. Change the banking system and we get rid of that.
      - Colonial Viper 5.2.1.1.2
        
        9 April 2014 at 11:58 am
        
        Yes I can see the New Zealand Government telling people to stop washing and BTW we are going to have a permanent recession.
        
        Who says that the “permanent recession” is going to be an avoidable choice that we have? The power elite know that our reserves of energy and materials is declining year on year – and they do not want to share with the rest of us.
        
        You really believe that the mantra of exponential growth is sustainable. Clue: it hasn’t been over the last 10 years, and the grim reality of permanent unemployment and underemployment shows no signs of changing for tens of millions of people in the western “first world”.
      - Bill 5.2.1.1.3
        
        9 April 2014 at 12:57 pm
        
        You got a single word to say about the science he’s presenting srylands? I’m guessing not.
      - Tracey 5.2.1.1.4
        
        9 April 2014 at 1:13 pm
        
        i wonder what impact there would be if everyone had one short shower a day?
        
        used energy saving lightbulbs
        
        turned off non used appliances at the wall
        
        turned off lights in rooms to being used
        
        marty mars 5.2.1.1.4.1
        
        9 April 2014 at 3:40 pm
        
        I have a shower every 3 or 4 days generally and they are pretty short – but i do swim in the sea and rivers a bit so maybe it evens out, plus I don’t work in an office. Some may still say I’m a smelly hippie – I think I’m just doing a small bit to help the world 🙂
        
        karol 5.2.1.1.4.2
        
        9 April 2014 at 6:42 pm
        
        Sometimes I sweat way too much to just have one shower a day. Sorry – them’s the facts.
        
        Doesn’t everyone turn off lights in rooms not being used and use energy saving bulbs?
        
        It’d be easier to turn appliances off at the wall if the sockets were in accessible places, and not (necessarily in a small flat) under/behind furniture.
  - Draco T Bastard 5.2.2
    
    9 April 2014 at 11:12 am
    
    Research over the last few years have shown a high possibility of 4 to 6 degrees by 2100. I’ve linked to some of it before. One such article suggested 4 degrees by late mid century.
    
    The IPCC is an amalgam of all this research and averages it and the IPCC has an unfortunate reputation for being overly conservative in its projections.
    - Colonial Viper 5.2.2.1
      
      9 April 2014 at 12:02 pm
      
      The World Bank considers 4 deg C warming by 2100 a distinct possibility which needs to be averted – and they aren’t really greeny tree hugging types.
      - Richard Christie 5.2.2.1.1
        
        9 April 2014 at 10:50 pm
        
        Mathew and many others thinks that because projection limits are couched in terms “limited to …by end of the century” they can regard such figures as an end point, completely and perhaps willfully oblivious to the fact that temperature is certain to continue to rise well beyond 2100 and beyond whatever figure is provided.
  - Bill 5.2.3
    
    9 April 2014 at 11:15 am
    
    Anyone without the bandwidth for video…here’s an audio with slides instead http://www.slideshare.net/DFID/professor-kevin-anderson-climate-change-going-beyond-dangerous
  - Tracey 5.2.4
    
    9 April 2014 at 1:28 pm
    
    given your citation of their temperature range, do you agree with everything in their report?
philj 6

9 April 2014 at 9:52 am

xox.
Ostrich Grosser(in name in deed! ) is only reflecting
a totally irresponsible attitude of which he should be ashamed for the future generations of New Zealanders and earthlings. Not to mention the biosphere.
karol 7

9 April 2014 at 9:56 am

MS: And the increasing frequency of drought and flood would ravage our horticultural industry.

There’s not a lot of reports about it in the MSM – just a low hum in the background – but Auckland and the north are currently experiencing drought conditions the second year in a row. Lake levels are low which could impact on electricity during the winter.

This must be having a significant impact on some horticulture and agriculture enterprises – how to “adapt”?

NZ Farmer reports a week ago:

Auckland is the worst drought-affected area in the country and there is no end in sight, Federated Farmers says.

Federated Farmers Auckland president Wendy Clark said Auckland had gone about three months without any significant rain and Cyclone Lusi gave little or no relief to farmers in the area.

Farmers usually budgeted for about six weeks without rain during the Auckland summer, she said, but they were beginning to compare this year to the drought of 1974, when significant rain did not fall until the end of May.

And this year’s drought was as bad as last year’s 70-year drought for the worst-affected areas in the country, she said.

Last year’s drought affected the whole country, putting pressure on supplementary feed supplies and freezing works killing space.

This year’s drought was more localised but “all the profits are disappearing down the drain” as farmers were forced to pay for supplementary feed at rising prices, Clark said.

Rodney Times 6 days ago:

The big dry deepens and it’s uncertain how much relief will come from showers forecast later next week.

A drought status hasn’t been declared over the region yet, mainly because conditions vary from one area to another – there is extreme soil dryness around the Kaipara Harbour and better soil moisture in parts of Matakana.
[…]
Most of Rodney is experiencing significant soil moisture deficit.

Patches around the Kaipara Harbour, including Parakai and Helensville up to Tapora, are approaching severe conditions.

Dargaville News today:

Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy saw first hand the seriousness of the drought gripping Kaipara’s west coast when he visited John and Lurline Blackwell’s Mititai Rd beef and sheep farm.

Guy, who farms dairy and beef cattle near Levin, said it was important for him to get out of Wellington and see the conditions which last month led to the west coast of Northland being declared a localised drought area.

He agreed with farmers at last week’s meeting that the rest of New Zealand was likely unaware of how serious the situation is on the west coast.

Guy listened to the farmers’ issues and offered sympathy to those struggling with drought problems, but said Northland farmers would have to learn to farm with the likelihood of more droughts. He was last in Dargaville in February 2013 when Northland was declared a drought area after the driest summer in 70 years.

Basically, Guy is looking at adaptation intitiatives, rather than totally changing agricultural systems and related industry priorities.
- Zorr 7.1
  
  9 April 2014 at 10:12 am
  
  Add in to that the increasing likelihood of an El Nino ahead and it’s only going to get worse…
  - Ad 7.1.1
    
    9 April 2014 at 12:10 pm
    
    Weather is really spooky right now; unstable, high dew point, post-tropical in autumn, quite unpredictable. Really hard to adjust to that.
    
    Anyone like me recall predictable autumns? I think they’ve gone already.
    - marty mars 7.1.1.1
      
      9 April 2014 at 3:45 pm
      
      The feijoa’s are just kicking in – a good indication that winter (whatever that is) is coming. I sometimes see trees fruiting at weird times – maybe they are actually the canary in the mine.
    - karol 7.1.1.2
      
      9 April 2014 at 6:38 pm
      
      Still very summery in Auckland. Warm. Mainly just a sheet over me at nights – maybe a like blanket some times.
- Draco T Bastard 7.2
  
  9 April 2014 at 10:16 am
  
  The farmers don’t get any sympathy from me as they’ve brought it upon themselves in their drive to the entirety of NZ into a farm. Time for some reforesting so as to protect the land and the ecosystem that keeps us alive. IMO, the most land that should be allowed to be turned to open farmland is 50% and I think even that may be too much.
  - geoff 7.2.1
    
    9 April 2014 at 10:52 am
    
    Maybe within 1000 years NZ will once again be covered in mature natives.
    - The Baron 7.2.1.1
      
      9 April 2014 at 11:13 am
      
      What a weird little underinformed fantasy world you live in, and a negative one at that.
      
      NZ farmers aren’t perfect, but plenty of them are using suitable environmental protection measures, and things are improving.
      
      Convert that 50%, a number I note that you just deigned as the target based on your absolute zero knowledge of farming, ecology, natural systems, horticulture or forestry, would decimate our export industry and mean that we no longer have the money to pay for all your other frankly bizarre fantasies.
      
      I don’t see how anyone can take you seriously.
      - Draco T Bastard 7.2.1.1.1
        
        9 April 2014 at 11:23 am
        
        Convert that 50%, a number I note that you just deigned as the target based on your absolute zero knowledge of farming, ecology, natural systems, horticulture or forestry,
        
        Apparently I have more such knowledge than most NZ farmers.
        
        Removing most of the forest allows the land to dry out more making droughts worse. NZ has removed at least 80% of forest cover.
        
        would decimate our export industry and mean that we no longer have the money to pay for all your other frankly bizarre fantasies.
        
        Just need to develop other export sectors. I suggest producing IT and a space program.
        
        Lanthanide 7.2.1.1.1.1
        
        9 April 2014 at 12:34 pm
        
        A space program now.
        
        I suppose we should also build our own multi-billion dollar CPU fabs on top of fault lines, too?
        
        Draco T Bastard …
        
        9 April 2014 at 1:26 pm
        
        Life’s a little risky. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t live it.
        
        Colonial Viper …
        
        9 April 2014 at 2:15 pm
        
        Geeezus Draco, we are entering the last 20 years of easily available fossil fuels on Earth, and you want us to go into building rockets???
        
        How is that going to help with increasing energy and food poverty in this country?
        
        Sorta like the US spending a hundred billion dollars on the next generation of aircraft carriers as tens of millions of Americans subsist on foodstamps and meagre welfare payments.
        
        Colonial Viper …
        
        9 April 2014 at 2:18 pm
        
        Then there’s the replacement programme for the Trident submarine, even as the UK govt is pushing out thousands of poor people from council flats. I mean, WTF is up with these elites.
        
        marty mars …
        
        9 April 2014 at 3:51 pm
        
        I’d imagine draco wants rockets for defense. The only use of a space program would be so the elite can fuck off when it gets too hot – and it won’t be long before it gets hot, plus a viable space program would take too long imo to get up and running anyway. So it would be a massive waste of energy and resource when both are running out.
        
        Draco T Bastard …
        
        9 April 2014 at 4:00 pm
        
        we are entering the last 20 years of easily available fossil fuels on Earth, and you want us to go into building rockets???
        
        Rockets don’t use fossil fuels.
        
        How is that going to help with increasing energy and food poverty in this country?
        
        The R&D in a space program will, inevitably, look at power generation. In fact, it was the US space program that gave us photo-voltaic cells in the first place.
        
        That said, the only way we’re going to address energy poverty is a) Building lots of wind-turbines and solar panels and b) getting rid of the fake electricity market that has households subsidising businesses (with households paying 21c/kwh and businesses paying ~7c while the two sectors use the same amount means that households are actually paying two thirds of the market income to generators. Guess where all the profit come from).
        
        Sorta like the US spending a hundred billion dollars…
        
        Money also doesn’t address energy or food poverty. In fact, it’s catering to money that has caused both of those.
        
        The Baron …
        
        9 April 2014 at 4:11 pm
        
        Good lord you actually believe this too.
        
        But that’s right – banning bananas was your other policy idea. And the idea that we can print infinite cash without consequences to build this space program.
        
        I’ve never seen someone be simultaneously so absolutely blindingly arrogant and collosally misguided. Have a badge.
        
        Draco T Bastard …
        
        9 April 2014 at 6:39 pm
        
        banning bananas was your other policy idea.
        
        [citation needed]
        
        And the idea that we can print infinite cash without consequences to build this space program.
        
        Never said that. In fact, I’ve always said that it needs to be well regulated. Increase created money, increase taxes. So, why are you lying?
        
        I’ve never seen someone be simultaneously so absolutely blindingly arrogant and collosally misguided. Have a badge.
        
        You should probably look in the mirror sometime.
        
        The Baron 7.2.1.1.1.2
        
        9 April 2014 at 4:04 pm
        
        Space program? Point proven.
        
        Draco T Bastard …
        
        9 April 2014 at 4:08 pm
        
        What do you have against NZ developing it’s society?
        
        The Baron …
        
        9 April 2014 at 4:14 pm
        
        Nothing against that, you toddler.
        
        I have a lot against your frankly f*cking mad idea. Usually when people take themselves this seriously, its cos they have something worth taking seriously to say…
        
        I guess every rule has its exceptions.
        
        Draco T Bastard …
        
        9 April 2014 at 6:42 pm
        
        I have a lot against your frankly f*cking mad idea.
        
        It’s not a mad idea – even the IMF thinks it’s a good idea. The mad idea is the present economic paradigm – the one you support.
      - geoff 7.2.1.1.2
        
        9 April 2014 at 11:27 am
        
        Baron, I presume you meant to reply to Draco??
        
        The Baron 7.2.1.1.2.1
        
        9 April 2014 at 4:05 pm
        
        I did. Sorry.
      - vto 7.2.1.1.3
        
        9 April 2014 at 11:44 am
        
        I don’t see how anyone can take the claim that there is a drought seriously…. it is only a drought relative to the farmers needs, not to the climate. Just like the one last year, it is but a standard drier spell. The problem clearly is that farmers have stripped all the vegetation from the land so of course it dries out super quickly. Such silly short term thinking. quelle surprise….
        
        Draco T Bastard 7.2.1.1.3.1
        
        9 April 2014 at 12:21 pm
        
        +1
      - greywarbler 7.2.1.1.4
        
        9 April 2014 at 2:51 pm
        
        ‘Things are improving’ folks. List the things that are improving Baron, in what way, to what extent, for how long, and to what end.
        
        I’m sure you will get more joy from listening to Max Bygraves who sings that – Fings ain’t what they used to be.
    - Colonial Viper 7.2.1.2
      
      9 April 2014 at 12:06 pm
      
      Maybe within 1000 years NZ will once again be covered in mature natives.
      
      Yep.
      
      In 1000 years access to fossil fuels will be very minimal (in fact, fossil fuels for all but urgent and high priority uses will be a distant memory after about 2030).
      
      Maintaining large built up areas, huge highly mechanised farms, exotic forest areas etc will simply be impossible.
- Tracey 7.3
  
  9 April 2014 at 10:57 am
  
  “Guy, who farms dairy and beef cattle near Levin, said it was important for him to get out of Wellington and see the conditions which last month led to the west coast of Northland being declared a localised drought area.”
  
  YA THINK?????????????
  - karol 7.3.1
    
    9 April 2014 at 11:06 am
    
    Yeah – that is a glaring admission.
Ennui 8

9 April 2014 at 11:06 am

Groser was asked yesterday in Parliament about his comments on climate change. He confirmed that without changes over the next decade the country’s output of greenhouse gasses will increase by 48%.

Forty eight percent increase????? This figure betrays the idiocy of his advisors from government departments (like Treasury) and grosers plain self imposed pig ignorance of energy issues.

Put plainly the equation for the “projected” increase is use more petrochemical based fertilisers to run more methane producing cows (if we can possibly find anywhere more to do this) PLUS burn a whole lot more petroleum / gas with cars etc.

So going to BPs own world production petroleum figures shows that production has peaked and is in slow decline…where will we get more from to burn? Do Groser and his advisors really believe in fairy tales or have they just got there heads so far up their arses? I pay taxes to keep these fekkers employed: why should I, I obviously can do their jobs and mine concurrently.
- Draco T Bastard 8.1
  
  9 April 2014 at 11:18 am
  
  So going to BPs own world production petroleum figures shows that production has peaked and is in slow decline…where will we get more from to burn?
  
  That would be why National are so keen to drill our sea floor.
  
  Do Groser and his advisors really believe in fairy tales or have they just got there heads so far up their arses?
  
  Both.
  
  I pay taxes to keep these fekkers employed: why should I, I obviously can do their jobs and mine concurrently.
  
  That is a question that everybody needs to be asking. Sure, we need the government departments but do we really need the MPs?
  - Colonial Viper 8.1.1
    
    9 April 2014 at 12:38 pm
    
    That would be why National are so keen to drill our sea floor.
    
    And none of these activities are going to replace the major loss of production volumes from the drying up of the huge conventional super-fields found in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s.
  - marty mars 8.1.2
    
    9 April 2014 at 3:57 pm
    
    Good comments. The gnats are desperate to hit the oil and a lot of politicians get in the way of sensible policy – they hinder rather than help.
greywarbler 9

9 April 2014 at 1:35 pm

Just an aside. The dairying that is having such a big effect on raising our emissions and decreasing our water and other natural resources is likely to be a poisoned chalice indeed.
First we are getting more competition from South America particularly Chile, where I think NZ have already diversified with dairying, if that is diversification. Also the Eastern Europe areas that have run down industrial systems, like us, are going to be getting into dairying as is China, increasingly.

And lastly Goodman Fielder which started as a NZ business, diversified to Australia, is looking to sell its NZ dairying interests to Fonterra. This includes Tararua which has promoted itself to customers like me as an independent upstart entrepreneur, but its part of the Goodman Fielder chain.

I went to the local market today and will go back next Wednesday. The NZ spirit of individual action in vegs and flavoured honeys, much of the produce announcing itself as organic, is enriched by Swiss people knowledgable about edible mushrooms, smoked seafood producer, Italian food, lovely European sausages with delicious bratwurst, then there are special muesli mixes, a busker with guitar, and plants for the garden of all sorts of vegs and many others. It’s been said before rightly, we need to support local, and then NZ or we won’t have anything of our own left after the neo libs have scooped out all the sweet insides of the country. Those still left here will have to ensure the seeds get planted to ensure the harvest of fruit continues. (By the way the kumara grower says that they grow quite well in drought conditions, and the sand they like to grow in must have absorbed a lot of the moisture often mainly dew and the roots can manage with that.)
captain hook 10

9 April 2014 at 3:09 pm

national will adapt easily.
They are the closest thing you can have to a monkey without actually being a monkey
Populuxe1 11

9 April 2014 at 9:40 pm

So apparently the latest “on trend” things for climate change denying Tory muppets to do is to call anybody who knows what they’re talking about a “warmist” and deliberately confuse “climate” with “weather”.
Corokia 12

9 April 2014 at 9:44 pm

Point taken about oil and gas, Andrew Little and New Plymouth. Looks like a case of don’t scare the horses, but that just makes Labour another version of National, nicer to workers and beneficiaries, but shit useless when it comes to climate change.
- greywarbler 12.1
  
  10 April 2014 at 9:32 am
  
  Corokia
  +1
Jenny 13

10 April 2014 at 7:36 am

‘

Come my little Venus

Can’t you feel, can’t you feel
It’s in all of us.

You scream in silence
But I can hear you

And come my little venus
Come my little venus
Come my little venus
Come my little venus
And come my little venus
Come my little venus

Come my little venus
Can’t you feel, can’t you feel
Now you’re one of us

Come my little venus, venus, venus
Come my little, oh my venus
My venus, my venus, my venus, my venus, my venus
And come my little venus.