New Zealand is doing nothing about climate change

178 comments on “New Zealand is doing nothing about climate change ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Ad 1

   5 January 2014 at 8:24 am

   The one organisation in New Zealand with the power to change greenhouse gas emissions is not any government department, it’s Fonterra.

   Dairy’s takeover of rural life is unlike any boom New Zealand has experienced before. It is thorough, permanent, and takes every drop of spare water it can find in every non-National Park acre from Houhora to Bluff.

   Only consumer pressure from environmentally-concerned customer bases such as the EU and ingredient purchasers such as Cadbury’s, Kraft, and Nestlé will be able to successfully pressure them.

   Regrettably, New Zealand is getting – and will get- the environment that the customer wants, not what the citizen wants.
   • karol 1.1

     5 January 2014 at 8:38 am

     But aren’t “customer wants” the result of corporate marketing manipulations – the con job resulting in addictions to consuming ever more resources?
2. Sanctuary 2

   5 January 2014 at 9:28 am

   the New Zealand Herald must be just about the last newspaper that fancies itself as a journal of record that still gives space to climate change denier crackpots like Hide to sound off.
   • RedLogix 2.1

     5 January 2014 at 10:10 am

     Hide’s past wrong, he’s offensive.

     Could be worse, Australia has an entire government of crackpots.
     • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1

       5 January 2014 at 6:00 pm

       It’s now at the point that if anything like what Hide and other denialists say about climate change is published the publisher should be charged at least $1m with no appeal. It’s not only offensive, it’s destructive and will result in mass death.
       • jaymam 2.1.1.1

         6 January 2014 at 5:09 pm

         I disagree with almost everything that Hide has ever said, except that what he says about climate change is correct. But it’s hopeless having a discussion about climate change on this forum. Stifling discussion and calling your opponents names is not the answer.
         • lprent 2.1.1.1.1

           6 January 2014 at 7:15 pm

           But it’s hopeless having a discussion about climate change on this forum. Stifling discussion and calling your opponents names is not the answer.

           You ever think about how irritating it is to see people clearly avoiding listening to others and repeating the same unfactual crap over and over again like drug-addled victim of alzheimer’s syndrome?

           Dissension seldom gets “stifled” here even on climate change, however I do like being blunt. However, “name-calling” does not exactly match accurately describing someone who is too scared or ignorant to read anything based on science because it causes problems with their world view.
         • Draco T Bastard 2.1.1.1.2

           6 January 2014 at 7:24 pm

           This is what increasing temperature means, eventually, for every species around the world. Rodney Hide is wrong on climate change and the reason why he’s wrong is because he wants to continue business as usual (i.e, continue raping the world) and not because he’s stumbled into some sort information that completely contradicts all the evidence gathered by the climatologists.
         • KJT 2.1.1.1.3

           6 January 2014 at 7:52 pm

           I thought Hide was unwittingly funny.

           First. This quote from Al Gore. “”The ice on land is melting at a faster rate and large ice sheets are moving towards the ocean more rapidly.”

           Juxtaposed with this.

           “The nuttiness is readily apparent. The expedition issued a statement that, “Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up.” Bad luck, really. The climate scientists were in the one bit of Antarctica where there’s ice”.

           Um, Rodney. Large Ice sheets moving towards the ocean more rapidly, means more ice pack further out to sea… 🙂 🙂

           It is what happens when the underlying ice over the land is melting, due to higher temperatures.
     • Macro 2.1.2

       8 January 2014 at 11:11 am

       Must see – Daily Show on Donald Trump..
       http://www.salon.com/2014/01/07/must_see_morning_clip_dont_trust_those_global_warming_scientist_thousandaires/
   • Flip 2.2

     5 January 2014 at 6:15 pm

     Why does Hide get MSM print when just about any commentator on this site could do better?
3. BM 3

   5 January 2014 at 9:33 am

   Just went to the Labour party website to have a look at what the labour party policies are regarding climate change..

   Couldn’t seem to find any information apart from a couple of press releases bagging the National party.
   Any one know where they keep their policy info regarding climate change, ETS etc?
   • mickysavage 3.1

     5 January 2014 at 9:45 am

     It is a work in progress BM.

     From David Cunliffe’s speech to conference 2013 :

     We recognise climate change is a fact, not a philosophy.

     We will restore an effective emissions trading scheme.

     We will not walk away from our responsibities to the planet, its climate or future generations.

     We want a high value, low carbon, renewable energy, smart, clean tech future.

     I suspect that the two principal areas you will see movement are in the cost of carbon credits with a requirement to buy local and the entry of Agriculture into the ETS although I personally think they should also give a tax break for reforestation efforts.
     • RedbaronCV 3.1.1

       5 January 2014 at 12:34 pm

       Perhaps not an untargeted tax break MS. Otherwise the overseas owned forests will be replanted by overseas owners on our dime after the profits have been shipped offshore.

       Targeted and tagged maybe, perhaps to tribally owned land, that’s not going to be sold away and where the benefits are concentrated on local jobs and ultimately the profits go on local needs. Maybe also an opportunity to integrate urban maori a little more into the tribal structures. There are also the Green’s ideas of using this type of activity to assist rural employment and conservation efforts.

       Also if we use the funds to plant public land then the whole country benefits ultimately as the taxpayer gets a return. I’ve always though that it has made some sort of sense, in times when underemployment is around, to have things like the old forestry schemes which generate paid work and also create community assets, admittedly ones that are long term and with a modest rate of return over these lengthy periods. Only governments can usually afford that sort of time horizon. The trick of course is to throttle back the schemes graduallly without harm when underemployment is low.
       • mickysavage 3.1.1.1

         5 January 2014 at 1:42 pm

         Agreed RB that a lot of thought would need to go into it and the last thing you would want to do is incentivize the wrong behaviour. There would have to be a classification system so that change in use was rewarded.
         • RedBaronCV 3.1.1.1.1

           5 January 2014 at 5:35 pm

           Agreed and I must say only 9% reafforestation looks like a very doable target. I’ll check the section out as to where I can place my share. Also wonder if a very tiny portion of earthquake insurance levies coln’t go into forestry both pine and native. Nothing like a bunch of trees and a sawmill to get some new housing off the ground.
           • weka 3.1.1.1.1.1

             5 January 2014 at 6:35 pm

             Reforesting is crucial for so many reasons.

             It also looks like regenerative farming sequesters carbon in a seriously big way, so this is another opportunity for NZ to lead the way.
   • lprent 3.2

     5 January 2014 at 9:51 am

     The Labour party site is designed for the day to day running of pilitics. But I suspect that you simply didn’t search correctly for a policy.

     http://www.labour.org.nz/policy-platform

     You will also find a link there to the 2011 manifesto.

     BTW: Try finding the same thing at http://national.org.nz. The last word appears to be a 2011 manifesto. http://www.national.org.nz/PDF_General/Environment_and_climate_change_policy.pdf.

     What you will find out is that they think trees and wind farms are the ONLY answer. For instance up to 2010

     “Net emissions have fallen for the first time
     since 1990 due to gains in forestry and
     renewable electricity.”

     Now I suspect that any economist (and everyone else) will tell them that the main reason that emissions fell was because the economy had a rapid reduction in activity bacause of Nationals mismanagement of the GFC and the burning of fuel fell accordingly. But that is National – they have a manifest destiny to lie (badly).
     • BM 3.2.1

       5 January 2014 at 10:05 am

       Who was the genius who thought putting the link to policy in the footer was a good idea?
       Why is it hidden way down there?

       When you do click on the link, it takes you through to another part of the website which you can’t seem to get to from the main page.
       Should this sort of stuff not be up in the main menu?

       2/10

       I shall now go have a read of labours draft policy, thanks for the link.
       • Frank Macskasy 3.2.1.1

         5 January 2014 at 10:51 am

         Hmmm, BM does have a valid point. The “Policy Platform” should be at the top of the page, alongside “David Cunliffe »People » Media Centre Issues »About »Connect”.

         As we near the election, more and more people will be wanting to know about Labour policies and relying on the MSM will be fraught will frustration.

         ACT’s website shows how it should look: http://www.act.org.nz/
         • lprent 3.2.1.1.1

           5 January 2014 at 11:44 am

           Oh I agree (the National site puts their 2011 manifesto up the top and calls it “policy”).

           But giving suggestions about how to layout the Labour site to make it useful for people on the web is a bit pointless. I suspect it goes through a committee of illiterates and gets crapped out into the site we see today.

           Labour really needs to find a tech-head czar to control their various bits of technology so there is a single point of reference that doesn’t require spending a decade to explain simple tech concepts to. In particular one who can tell politicians to piss off on their 3 yearly attempts to screw up decade long strategies. And no I am not putting my hand up for it….
   • Te Reo Putake 3.3

     5 January 2014 at 9:51 am

     Anyone else CONCERNed that BM’s TROLLing of the LP website left him ignorant about climate change?
     • BM 3.3.1

       5 January 2014 at 10:23 am

       Who’s trolling?

       The main guts of this thread is what a terrible job Nationals doing regarding climate change and the environment.

       I was interested to see what labour was going to do differently, the fact that climate change doesn’t even rate a mention within the issues category on the labour website does bode rather poorly for the climate change movement within NZ.

       Hmm, I seem to have been placed in moderation for some reason?

       [lprent: Using the word “troll” and variants of it usually winds people in moderation (BTW: TRP went there as well). It is a simple but effective method to discourage its over-usage. I tend to put such epithets, peoples in real life names, and other violations of policy into auto-moderation when I find it appropriate to do so. ]
       • Naturesong 3.3.1.1

         5 January 2014 at 11:10 am

         You may have missed subtlety of his comment 🙄
         Te Reo Putake was accusing you of Concern trolling
         • RedLogix 3.3.1.1.1

           5 January 2014 at 11:13 am

           Maybe. BM doesn’t always act out the cardboard cut-out troll caricature …
       • dave 3.3.1.2

         5 January 2014 at 11:41 am

         BM you must be cameron slater or his troll cousine
   • tinfoilhat 3.4

     5 January 2014 at 11:37 am

     If you are interested the Green policy is here.

     https://www.greens.org.nz/policysummary/climate-change-policy-summary-kicking-carbon-habit
     • BM 3.4.1

       5 January 2014 at 12:21 pm

       If Labour goes into coalition with the Greens what chance do you think of any of those policies being implemented.

       Or do you think Green policies are pretty much a reflection of what Labour polices will be in this particular area.
       • tinfoilhat 3.4.1.1

         5 January 2014 at 12:48 pm

         It will depend on the relative % of the vote.

         I personally don’t think labour will be much different from national so it will take a very strong showing from the Greens for anything to change.
   • Tracey 3.5

     6 January 2014 at 10:34 am

     How would a lack of policy from an Opposition party excuse the failure of the government to do what they promise din a campaign

     According to this government that would have been a mandate to implement the policy. Was the campaign promise a lie BM?
4. Chooky 4

   5 January 2014 at 9:47 am

   +100…. really good post!…….a large step towards a ‘solution’ is ‘Truth’ …counteracting the lies and holding govts ( Nact) to account on their actual record in office and their lies (to lure voters concerned about the environment and planet)

   ….Nact should get hammered on this in 2014
5. Disraeli Gladstone 5

   5 January 2014 at 9:55 am

   The failure of New Zealand in regards to climate change is thrown into harsher light when looking at other developed nations and blocs. The European Union, which let’s be honest is hardly functioning at the moment, has managed to reduce its emission by 15% from 1990. And have said “well, we’re easily going to meet our 20% target already, let’s go for 30%” and are putting in more policies to help with this.

   Britain, under the Major Conservative Government and New Labour (which probably just as neoliberal as Key’s Government) managed to reduce carbon emissions by roughly 25% from 1991 to 2009. Germany, Sweden and Poland in a similar time frame has managed about some where in the 20s% reduction range. France and other European countries have at least kept their emissions steady. Japan is similar.

   It is possible. And indeed, not as hard as it seems.

   But we have the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand (and a few other developed countries in Europe) who are not doing anything, actively raising their emissions, just because they don’t want to go first.

   Which is idiotic because they’re not even going first.
   • RedLogix 5.1

     5 January 2014 at 10:04 am

     In light of this inexorable logic – at what point will the sovereignty of rogue nations like New Zealand be stripped from them in this regard?
     • Grumpy 5.1.1

       5 January 2014 at 10:21 am

       Telling………..
       • RedLogix 5.1.1.1

         5 January 2014 at 10:51 am

         Yes I know it’s the ‘socialist wet-dream one-world government’ bogey.

         But consider this grumpy. At some point the structure of governance has to match the reality of the society it is governing.

         What we have now is the direct analogy of the multiple fiefdoms of medieval England engaged in a centuries long struggle against the centralised power of the monarchy. And then the struggle of the people to establish democratic accountability of that central power.

         It was a long, bloody battle, but in 2014 who is putting their hand up to unwind all that and resurrect those pissant medieval war-lords?

         The first major round of globalisation that ran from roughtly 1845 to 1914, collapsed catastrophically in the conflict of multiple sovereign powers whose diplomats could no longer negotiate good faith treaties and agreements.

         The second round began in 1945, and in 2014 almost exactly a century later we stand in a very similar place on many issues – including this one. Only this time we have range of global institutions which despite obvious shortcomings have achieved a great deal. The UN IPCC has already demonstrated remarkable leadership in this matter.

         Excess carbon burning is a global problem that no-one can escape from. It is the intransigence of the Anglo rogue nations to act responsibly – that will ultimately ensure a global intervention of some kind.

         As NS rightly points out, it will start with trade sanctions – then it will ramp up.
         • Draco T Bastard 5.1.1.1.1

           5 January 2014 at 6:12 pm

           It was a long, bloody battle, but in 2014 who is putting their hand up to unwind all that and resurrect those pissant medieval war-lords?

           National and other conservative political parties around the world? They’re certainly working hard to take us back to where the all the land and resources are owned by the unelected few with the people having no say in how those resources are used.
           • RedLogix 5.1.1.1.1.1

             5 January 2014 at 6:43 pm

             Yes, I forgot that DtB.

             I’ll fall back on one of my more road-worn aphorisms “History does not so much repeat, as crawl up a spiral”.
     • Naturesong 5.1.2

       5 January 2014 at 10:23 am

       It won’t.

       Eventually they’ll get sick of us being wankers and put up trade barriers / sanctions.
       <tinfoilhat=”ON”>Though that may not happen until the US properly becomes a failed state and it’s military gets broken up.</tinfoilhat>
       • Grumpy 5.1.2.1

         5 January 2014 at 10:29 am

         Trade barriers? Our biggest trading partners are China, Australia, US etc. all countries not part of the warmist hysteria. In fact we will do well as some of our competitors are taxed out of existence by carbon levies etc.
         • Naturesong 5.1.2.1.1

           5 January 2014 at 10:34 am

           The end of civilisation as we know it via rising sea levels and extreme weather verses retarding the use of fossil fuels via taxation.

           Hmm, I wonder which is gonna hurt more?
         • mickysavage 5.1.2.1.2

           5 January 2014 at 10:37 am

           Warmest hysteria? Good to see you have an open mind Grumpy. Will you apologise to my children and grandchildren if and when it is clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that anthropogenic change is a reality, presuming we have not reached that stage already?
           • Grumpy 5.1.2.1.2.1

             5 January 2014 at 11:31 am

             So you are open to the chance that it is not reality yet? Are you just relying on a model?
             The best thing I can do for my children and grandchildren is buy a Bach in the Marlborough Sounds…….prices should be dropping any day now. roll on the Labour/Greens scare campaign, that will get them tumbling……
             • Macro …

               5 January 2014 at 12:07 pm

               Most baches (cribs) in the sounds are well above sea level Grumpy – not a good example. How about Ohope? Now there’s a place under threat. Been there in the morning of a High Tide and noticed the sewage stench?
             • mac1 …

               5 January 2014 at 1:04 pm

               Baches in the Sounds relying on fuel oil for boats or cars to access them- no public transport- at a distance from hospital care- relying on roads which are easily disrupted for traffic, there being no alternative roads and in a high rainfall area with frequent tree damage and slips. Great for a holiday but pressure on available sites and fishing/kai moana stocks is growing. Not the place I’d live when fuel becomes scarce and expensive.
         • Tracey 5.1.2.1.3

           6 January 2014 at 10:37 am

           “warmist hysteria.” source?

           Do you accept that since industrialisation humans have polluted the world?
   • Matthew Hooton 5.2

     5 January 2014 at 6:39 pm

     The reason EU emissions have fallen by 17% since 1990 are:
     1) In the countries which were in the EU in 1990 (where emissions have fallen by 6% since then), there has been a big shift from manufacturing to service industries (the UK is a case in point). There continues to be talk in the EU that it has merely “exported” its carbon emissions to China.
     2) There was a significant increase in generation of nuclear energy in the 1990s and, more recently, an increase in other forms of clean energy generation
     3) In the countries which have joined the EU since 1990 (including East Germany after reunification) the collapse of socialism led to the collapse of inefficient, polluting industries and the adoption of the much higher environmental standards found in capitalist countries.
     4) The great recession that started in 2008 caused largely by profligate over-spending by socialist governments in the PIIGS (Asian countries without large welfare states avoided the recession as did, largely, Australia and NZ).
     So I not sure that the EU is really good model for climate change policy. Or anything at all really. Except as a mechanism to stop the Europeans from killing one another in wars the way they used to regularly until it was formed.
     • mickysavage 5.2.1

       5 January 2014 at 6:46 pm

       Happy new year Matthew.

       While I do not disagree with points 1, 2, and 3 I always thought that the great recession was caused by innate greed by a bunch of Wall Street merchant bankers including those employed by Merrill Lynch rather than socialist behaviour by a group of European states. In fact the subsequent socialist bail out of a number of economies probably stopped the world’s economy from going to the wall.
       • Matthew Hooton 5.2.1.1

         5 January 2014 at 6:55 pm

         You may be correct with respect to the US, but the cause of the crisis in the PIIGS (and the UK) had more to do with profligate spending and inflexible labour markets. The Club Med Eurozone countries just loved being able to borrow for welfare and other spending at German interest rates – but of course it couldn’t last.
         • Zorr 5.2.1.1.1

           5 January 2014 at 7:22 pm

           You actually forget one of the prime reasons that the PIIGS crisis occurred in the way that it did (and that it continues today) is that every country in the EU has lost it’s sovereign currency and are all tied together under the banner of the Euro. There was no option for quantitative easing or sovereign debt write off in order to relieve the pressure in the time of crisis. As much as you may wish to criticize the Greek and Spanish governments for excessive borrowing from Germany, remember there is another side of that equation – the German lenders making off like bandits by lending to those governments.

           Had the countries maintained their sovereign currencies, there could have been many measures that they could have taken unilaterally to prevent the crisis growing but because the German bankers wanted their pound of flesh, there was no way for those governments to act in a sovereign manner.

           If anything, the PIIGS crisis should be a massive warning for us all in any future that involves a TPPA.
           • Foreign Waka 5.2.1.1.1.1

             5 January 2014 at 8:29 pm

             Absolutely right observation regarding sovereign currency. Additionally, some 30 odd different languages are spoken on the mainland Europe and as many cultures are residing. One should not forget that many, many millions of migrants from the east-block countries, formerly beyond the iron curtain, have settled in all those countries that offer social services, mostly Germany and Austria. There is a big uproar (same as the UK having all the African migrants) about this. It will get worse with the Bulgarians and Rumanian are now allowed to do the same. They are already asking for measures against “Social Tourism”. Everything that has been endured so far will come to the heat and it will be a very unsettling year.
             As for the Greeks – they have never believed that they have to pay tax and as many of the Mediterranean countries did have a cash economy. The failure in my opinion was and still is that these countries are bound into the union without having comparable systems, currencies aligned, values established etc. Countries north west of Spain, Italy and Greece were used to a very organized and disciplined approach to monetary policy, this had to go astray. I often wondered whether there was a purpose of destabilizing Europe.
             I do disagree with the German lenders making off with the money as it is to a large part Germany’s taxpayers that have to cough up the money as any default is being met by them. They are already in a state of great anger and there are in fact cities that have been found to run foreigners out of town. It all looks quite on the surface, but it really isn’t.
         • Foreign Waka 5.2.1.1.2

           5 January 2014 at 8:55 pm

           Whoooo, hold on a second. The Germans have a very high productivity that NZ can only dream of. Their labor market is flexible enough and not that different from NZ. They have not got an open ended unemployment benefit and have to earn it first before the can ask for money. This benefit is being reduced after 6 months to a what the call emergency benefit. Pension are not theirs by right but they have to work 40 years before the have the right to apply to any payment that is measured across the last 10 years of earnings. Borrow for Welfare? Yes, for the 1.2 million immigrants per year as they have a right to get all the support with none of these years of work or restrictions. Theoretically, native Germans would have the right to sue the Government fro discrimination.
           • Tracey 5.2.1.1.2.1

             6 January 2014 at 10:49 am

             they have quite high annual leave provisions dont they?
             • Foreign Waka …

               6 January 2014 at 5:25 pm

               4 weeks and more after 10 or so years service – not so dissimilar as NZ. Less Stat days though. Shorter working week – 35 hrs, paid maternity leave 1 year and part time has to be an option on return to work. Competition for workplaces is very strong and there are not as many protection measures as here. However, the taxes only go that far and they are already quite high in comparison to NZ, i.e GST 20%. The EU council in Brussels stipulates the conditions and as such any EU country has, to a certain extend lost its sovereignty..
         • johnm 5.2.1.1.3

           6 January 2014 at 10:00 am

           Hooten, Usual poisonous Nat spin
           Your comment is misleading. Take Ireland. Ireland had no spending or debt problem at all. Public debt was well below safe levels.
           However the corrupt government allowed crazy spending by private banks with imported money which fuelled an insane housing price bubble. When those private banks went bankrupt the corrupt Irish government (in bed with the private bankers and property developers) used the public purse to bail out private casino speculators, IT HAD NO LEGAL OBLIGATION TO DO SO. They could have done what Iceland did, which country has recovered nicely thankyou and has jailed some of its criminal private bankers. Iceland still maintains its welfare system, it respects its citizens while Ireland is again exporting its youth and is beggared by private debt a millstone round the Irish public’s neck for decades to come. Capitalism for the poor socialism for the speculators.
         • johnm 5.2.1.1.4

           6 January 2014 at 10:30 am

           Poisonous Nat Spin again Hooton. Crooked Nat Spin.

           “profligate spending and inflexible labour markets. The Club Med Eurozone countries just loved being able to borrow for welfare and other spending at German interest rates – but of course it couldn’t last.”

           Take Ireland. Ireland had no spending problem at all and its Public Debt was well within safe levels. The profligate spending was by Private Banks which imported money and who fueled an insane housing bubble lining the pockets of greedy developers along the way in addition to all the commissions and bonuses the private banker crims could get away with. Then the Ponzi Private bank casinos went POP! and should have then become bankrupt, end of story. It wouldn’t have affected the ordinary Irish person at all, foreign speculators would have lost billions of Euros, how sad!

           But! The criminal, corrupt Irish goverment (In bed with the same bankers and developers ) Did something absolutely stark staring mad!! Without any legal obligation they guaranteed the private casino bank’s debts and took the debt onto the Public’s back, a millstone to sink the public commonwealth forever. Then they further cemented Ireland’s debt slavery by allowing the IMF, ECB to bail out the bond holders while Ireland now owed at least 70 billion euros to the loan sharks of western finance.

           Ireland has been raped by International speculative finance and crooked private banks and a crook government. Now its young people are emigrating again and unemployment is high and privatisation goes to pay of the Public (OOPS private casino crooks) debt by destroying the commonwealth of Ireland. Ireland will be in debt bondage for decades to come.
           It was not I repeat not welfare spending that sunk Ireland but socialism for the speculator crooks and private banks and capitalism for the man in the street.That’s why your spin is poisonous the uninformed here will believe you know what you’re talking about when you don’t know what you are talking about!

           Look at Iceland they told the private banks and speculators to feck off and wiped them they are doing nicely now thankyou while maintaining their welfare system because they respect their people and they’ve jailed some crook bankers as well. Also their young people aren’t emigrating to escape a corrupt bankrupt political criminal conspiracy.

           I thought the first comment had gone missing, so I did it again however both have appeared. If you wish to delete one do the first one and keep the second. 🙂
           • Draco T Bastard 5.2.1.1.4.1

             6 January 2014 at 2:26 pm

             +1
     • Macro 5.2.2

       5 January 2014 at 6:48 pm

       And what about Denmark?
       http://www.eesi.org/112009_denmark

       Since 1990, Denmark has grown its economy by 45 percent while energy consumption has remained constant and CO2 emissions have fallen by 13 percent.
       • Macro 5.2.2.1

         5 January 2014 at 6:55 pm

         And
         http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Denmark-Increases-Carbon-Emission-Reduction-Targets.html

         By 2020 Denmark now wishes to cut its greenhouse emissions by 34% in comparison to its 1990 levels, whilst also reducing its energy consumption by more than 12% compared to 2006. They also plan to develop renewable heat technology, smart girds, and biogas amongst others, in order to supply 35% of its total energy from renewable sources. The plan hopes for 50% of electricity to be supplied from wind farms.

         All efforts are will help lead to the overall target of 100% of energy from renewable sources by 2050.

         Martin Lidegaard, the Danish minister for climate, energy, and building, said that, “Denmark will once again be the global leader in the transition to green energy. This will prepare us for a future with increasing prices for oil and coal. Moreover, it will create some of the jobs that we need so desperately, now and in the coming years.”
       • Matthew Hooton 5.2.2.2

         5 January 2014 at 7:34 pm

         Don’t know much about Denmark’s economy except that it is over 75% services and agriculture is less than 2%.
     • KJT 5.2.3

       5 January 2014 at 6:49 pm

       “caused largely by de-regulation of banking, toxic financial products, loans from Germany so that other countries could buy their goods, an inflexible Euro currency, inadequate wages and tax dodging by the rich in the PIIG’s. And now, Austerity policies.

       Fixed it for you.

       Funny that countries with even higher social spending than the PIIG’s. Australia for example, did best.
     • RedLogix 5.2.4

       5 January 2014 at 6:59 pm

       So I not sure that the EU is really good model for climate change policy. Or anything at all really. Except as a mechanism to stop the Europeans from killing one another in wars the way they used to regularly until it was formed.

       Point 1. Yes I think everyone realises that the EU was never an ideal mechanism. If you really wanted to govern Europe as a federation there are any number of structural things you would do differently.

       Point 2. If the EU can be credited with stopping even one tiny little war – surely that is a great success?
       • Matthew Hooton 5.2.4.1

         5 January 2014 at 7:10 pm

         Yep, definitely, on that measure it has been one of the greatest success stories in history (and that was its original goal when the European Coal and Steel Community was set up after WW2). Free trade between states, economic integration and globalisation are the most powerful ways to stop wars, as Europe since 1945 so strongly suggests.
         • Draco T Bastard 5.2.4.1.1

           5 January 2014 at 7:33 pm

           Free trade between states, economic integration and globalisation are the most powerful ways to stop wars, as Europe since 1945 so strongly suggests.

           What a load of bollocks. There’s nothing to indicate that it was “free-trade” that stopped more wars in Europe and quite a lot to suggest that people there were, after WWI&II, horrified of even the thought of another war. In fact, the US wars since WWII would indicate that free-trade has nothing to do with stopping wars and quite a lot to do with starting them as the so called “free-traders” seek to spread their ideology and influence across the world.
         • RedLogix 5.2.4.1.2

           5 January 2014 at 7:39 pm

           Free trade between states, economic integration and globalisation are the most powerful ways to stop wars, as Europe since 1945 so strongly suggests.

           Well yes. Although I suggest we put a different slant on the meaning of ‘free trade’. Certainly the a lot of the old national barriers were dismantled and that indeed ‘freed up trade’. But the most passing of acquaintance with the bureaucracy of Brussels reveals just how closely regulated that trade has been.

           And unlike a lot of people here, I’m comfortable with globalisation per se. As you say it’s a powerful way to reduce conflict – as long as there is a democratically accountable political structure that mirrors it.

           The reason why globalisation has become a dirty word on the left, is that in the absence of a functional global governance, non-state actors such as big finance and corporates have happily colonised the vacuum at everyone elses’ expense.
           • Macro 5.2.4.1.2.1

             5 January 2014 at 7:51 pm

             Red I don’t think you fully appreciate just how much the globalisation of poverty has been influenced by freeing up of large numbers of workers world wide through “free trade” agreements. We have imported unemployment from all over the world, and so has the USA, England and every developed country one pokes a stick at.
             • RedLogix …

               5 January 2014 at 7:58 pm

               Macro,

               happily colonised the vacuum at everyone elses’ expense. was probably sacrificing accuracy for conciseness.

               Otherwise yes.
         • Foreign Waka 5.2.4.1.3

           5 January 2014 at 9:07 pm

           I don’t know where you get these stories from, but Germany was literally bombed to pieces by 1945 and Austria was occupied until 1955. Free Trade? Yep, with the solders from Russia, France, Briton and America for cigarettes and coffee. Europe had the Iron Curtain between East and West to avoid further conflict. We all remember the wall tumbling and the end of the cold war in 1991, not that long ago. As to the future, hold on to your seats.
6. Philj 6

   5 January 2014 at 10:12 am

   Xox
   I draw the conclusion that, collectively, we are in the ‘stupid’ club with Oz, USA, Canada. Sad really. It could be that the ‘governments’ of those countries (us!) are owned by corporate Interests, more than the others I. E. Germany, Austria, Denmark, Sweden etc. The Golden Rule. He who has the Gold, rulz!
   • Naturesong 6.1

     5 January 2014 at 10:18 am

     … collectively, we are in the ‘stupid’ club with Oz, USA, Canada.

     Hmm, 4 of the five eyes.
   • Grumpy 6.2

     5 January 2014 at 10:27 am

     You forgot, Russian, China, India etc. etc.
     The warmist countries now account for about less than 10% of emissions. UK is about to bail out due to huge energy price increases.
     If the CO2 levels are increasing as Mickey’s graph says, why no corresponding rise in temperature, there has been no significant warming now for 17 years. Instead we are seeing signs of cooling.
     Time to look at the “model”?
     By all means Labour should campaign on taxing the life out of voters using this scam as an excuse. That should go down well.
     • mickysavage 6.2.1

       5 January 2014 at 10:42 am

       The graph is from the government’s report.

       Did you really think the relationship between CO2 levels and temperature would be linear.

       And how do you explain all the extreme weather events?
       • Grumpy 6.2.1.1

         5 January 2014 at 11:24 am

         Even the IPCC does not support linking extreme weather to global warming. What extreme events? Record ice in the Antarctic, record cold weather in UK and US? Weather is weather but the data shows no increase in Global temperature for 17 years.
         There is no doubt that CO2 levels are increasing, just no warming is being measured for 17 years. That is not to say it won’t happen but the “model” is crap and of no use as a predictor.
         The real world is moving towards mitigation of any change in climate, having seen the extreme forecasts proved totally wrong.
         • lprent 6.2.1.1.1

           5 January 2014 at 11:35 am

           Record ice in the Antarctic, record cold weather in UK and US?

           I think I have commented about your appalling scientific ignorance before. Lets add a simple inability to observe the world around you to that.

           Surprisingly having things melt causes more ice to move out further out into previously warmer regions. This is why the rivers that have been iced up in their headwaters have a lot ice floating down by the previously open water at their mouth during spring thaws. It gets often gets colder towards the mouths of rivers during the thaw than it did during winter because tehre is a lot of cold water rushing down.

           The Arctic is melting because it is warming. Therefore on average it will get colder in northern Europe and the US while the thaw continues.

           The Antarctic is starting to melt. Therefore there will be more floe ice in the water offshore from the continent for the foreseeable future.

           …data shows no increase in Global temperature for 17 years.

           Blockhead! One type of data – air temperature does. Look at the water. Melting ice sucks up heat. Warming cold water takes heat.
           http://mobile.businessweek.com/news/2013-10-23/mystery-of-the-missing-global-warming

           You really don’t like thinking eh!
           • Grumpy 6.2.1.1.1.1

             5 January 2014 at 11:40 am

             Yes you have and I always read your responses, as well as other information from respected sources……..speaking of which, guess which highly respected expert the warmists turned to to get real information on Antarctic conditions after it all turned to shit.
             http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/31/wuwt-and-weatherbell-help-kusi-tv-with-a-weather-forecasting-request-from-ice-trapped-ship-in-antarctica-akademik-shokalskiy/
             • William …

               5 January 2014 at 1:30 pm

               Highly respected? Yeah right.
               You should have a read of
               http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/01/anthony-watts-most-blessed-and-ethical.html
               to get that embarrassing post from WUWT in perspective.
           • Grumpy 6.2.1.1.1.2

             5 January 2014 at 11:54 am

             Ah the old latent heat argument eh? Actually both Arctic and Antarctice ice is within 2 standard deviations of historic data.
             • Macro …

               5 January 2014 at 4:47 pm

               link
               oh let me guess – the failed statistician Mclean?

               You do understand what 2 SD means don’t you?
           • alwyn 6.2.1.1.1.3

             6 January 2014 at 11:42 am

             You are clearly in the wrong occupation lprent.
             If it is all as simple, and as clearly predictable, as you say why were those dopey idiots going into the area where sea-ice was clearly going to be present in a vessel that was totally unsuitable for the task?
             Surely they realised that they were going to be trapped by the ice that was going to form in their path?
             Professor Chris Turney is clearly not sufficiently smart to hold down his post if he didn’t forsee that this was going to happen. Why is lprent working as a programmer in New Zealand when he should be a Professor of Climate Science at a minor University in Australia?
         • RedLogix 6.2.1.1.2

           5 January 2014 at 12:15 pm

           Grumpy,

           Just to add to lprents points.

           It’s really easy to fall into the trap of mistaking the noise for the signal.

           Let’s be clear. The CO2 warning signal (ie the information we are interested in) is small and slow moving. So small that on a daily, weekly or annual basis no human would ever notice it.

           By contrast the weather noise (information that is related to other causes) is much larger and very fast moving. It totally dominates our perceptions. Just the daily change in air temp from say 5 degC to 20 degC is larger than a decade of climate change signal by several orders of magnitude.

           To complicate matters, the signal we are interested in is global and not local. In other words the weather in any one location is only a small component of the global one.

           Primarily the global warming signal is being driven by a change in the balance of energy arriving from the sun and energy being radiated by the planet back into space. The amount of energy arriving from the sun does vary according some pretty well known astronomical cycles, but the one thing we are certain of is that over much of the last century – it has changed very little.

           This arriving energy from the sun must be re-radiated back into space in order to maintain a stable temperature. All surfaces radiates heat energy according to how hot they are. The hotter the surface, not only the more it radiates, but the distribution of energy changes. The energy arriving from the sun is broadly distributed according the black body temperature of the surface of the sun, while the Earth is much, much cooler and re-radiates mainly in the infra-red spectrum. Because this energy both arriving and leaving the plant must pass through the atmosphere, and because of this difference in energy distribution – they behave differently.

           In the atmosphere are a number of gases, primarily water vapour, CO2 and CH4 that because the absorb infra-red radiation, effectively making the atmosphere more opaque at infra-red. The more of these gases, the greater the “optical depth” of the atmosphere for energy leaving the surface.

           The best analogy I can think of is this. If your car headlights are nice and clean (low optical depth) then all of the light energy from the bulb inside will radiate brightly down the road. When they are very dirty and opaque, the headlight unit as a whole will be a lot less bright, even with the same sized bulb. To get the same brightness back you could either, clean the glass, or put in a bigger, hotter bulb. Optical depth is exactly analogous to ‘how dirty the the atmosphere is to infra-red light’.

           Because the planet must re-radiate the same amount of energy into space from the top of the atmosphere, the temperature at the surface must increase, or the energy imbalance must be stored somewhere.. A lot of people forget that without this optical depth of the atmosphere, the surface temperature of the Earth would actually be much colder. (Around -24 degC IIRC)

           The basics of this phenomenon are not even faintly controversial.
           • Grumpy 6.2.1.1.2.1

             5 January 2014 at 12:38 pm

             Yes, I do understand your argument and it appears logical. Certainly the physics involved are well understood.
             The issue seems to me that the “signal” and it’s real effect are not well established and rely on a model.
             The problem with models is that until they are verified by real life, they remain only an educated guess. The IPCC have had to admit that the old model is deficient (which is good scientific thinking) and have revised it. Unfortunately the lunatic fringe like Gore have based all sorts of insane predictions on it and the whole warmist issue is discredited. It has become political as your earlier comment reveals.
             Until real life mirrors the predictions AGW will remain a matter of faith, treated with religious fervor by the left as the ultimate vehicle for wealth redistribution.
             • BM …

               5 January 2014 at 12:53 pm

               Unfortunately the lunatic fringe like Gore have based all sorts of insane predictions on it and the whole warmist issue is discredited.

               http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/6491195/Al-Gore-could-become-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire.html

               Probably more to do with this.
               • Macro …

                 5 January 2014 at 1:02 pm

                 Ad hominem arguments are worthless and pointless BM..

                 You make no valid point here.
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 5 January 2014 at 6:35 pm

                 And the Koch Brothers lobbying against doing anything is due to their ownership of petroleum based industries which garners them millions of dollars each every year.

                 The hard facts are that global warming is happening and that we causing it and that the people who should be questioned about the motives are the people who profit from the continued destruction of the environment.
             • Macro …

               5 January 2014 at 12:58 pm

               Really Grumpy – just have a long hard look at the real data..
               there is a discussion in this link on the role of modelling in climate science as well – please read it carefully. You might learn something – but I expect from your entrenched position that that is not likely to happen..
               http://www.skepticalscience.com/fred-singer-american-unthinker.html
             • RedLogix …

               5 January 2014 at 12:58 pm

               The issue seems to me that the “signal” and it’s real effect are not well established and rely on a model.

               Not quite. The signal is real, it does not rely on models. For instance the guys at work will use CAD tools to do ‘finite element analysis’ to predict how a structure will behave under various types of load. But the model is not the structure. The physical rules that hold it up are real.

               I use fairly basic process models all the time too. I’m doing one right now (like Lynn I code and blog at the same time). I’m using them to make the software act like the real machine, and I can use the model to build and debug my control system software before the machine is built. Very helpful.

               Of course my machine models are not the same as the real machine. But because my model is more or less ‘good enough’, when I get to commission the actual beast there will be relatively few things that need fixing.

               It’s important to realise that all models are deficient, but:

               1. That does not mean that the model is not useful. In my case it’s essential.

               2. That the shortcomings of the model say anything about reality.

               That last point is critical. If I fail to properly account for the shape of vessel I am modelling the filling of, because I’m too lazy to write the code for it – all that means is that my model will be a bit out. Most of the time that ‘bit out’ just does not matter for my needs.

               But that says nothing at all about the real machine.
               • Murray Olsen …

                 6 January 2014 at 2:48 am

                 It seems to me that Grumpy is using the term “model” in a way that is deliberately designed to confuse the ignorant. He misses the fact that measurements have been made for a number of years now, and show both the signal and the noise. This is a simple matter of signal processing. Any climate model will be an attempt to retrodict what has happened and predict what will happen. Success at the first part means that we should take the predictions seriously. Grumpy is trying to pretend that we don’t even have past measurements, although that’s not the only thing he gets wrong. I think he does it on purpose.
                 • Draco T Bastard …

                   6 January 2014 at 2:28 pm

                   +1
             • RedLogix …

               5 January 2014 at 1:23 pm

               The IPCC have had to admit that the old model is deficient (which is good scientific thinking) and have revised it.

               All models are deficient. That’s why they are models. But they are very useful when you cannot access reality to experiment on.

               In my case the machine I would like to experiment on (ie debug my code) is not built yet, and even when it’s built I’ll only get a limited window of opportunity to work on it.

               The climate scientists do have a ‘built’ machine, ie the planet, but they have zero opportunity experiment with it. All they can ever do is observe it and watch the ‘de-facto’ experiment the human race is running on it willy-nilly. They have zero opportunity to change the initial conditions (the history) or to try changing any important variables to see what happens.

               Therefore models are very useful to them. And so far, despite the crack-pot claims to the contrary, they’ve been doing a ‘good enough’ job.

               Because the global warming signal is buried under an enormous layer of weather noise, it requires good statistical analysis to reveal it properly. I cannot over-emphasis this point too much – statistics is a set of very powerful tools, that when used properly enable meaning to be extracted from imperfect, incomplete or very noisy information.

               The more incomplete, the more imperfect and the noisier the data (and all three apply to climate science with bells on) – the better you need to be at statistics in order not to make a fool of yourself. Now my Engineering Maths is a tad rusty to say the least, so I rely on this guy who is a professional statistician and has written a text book on the topic:

               http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/09/02/el-nino-and-the-non-spherical-cow/
             • Flip …

               5 January 2014 at 2:43 pm

               @Grumpy
               Also climate scientists have used the models to match observed weather patterns over the last century. The models are now producing the same results as observed results. If you leave out anthropomorphic contributions it does not match the observed effects. The models also match pre-industrial temperatures as far as can be determined from ice cores etc.
         • Draco T Bastard 6.2.1.1.3

           5 January 2014 at 6:24 pm

           Record ice in the Antarctic

           Polar Ice Loss Accelerating, Study Finds

           The combination of previous observations revealed that no matter how you slice it, the poles are losing ice.

           Between 1992 and 2011, Antarctica lost 1,320 metric gigatons (plus or minus 980) of ice, while Greenland lost 2,940 metric gigatons (plus or minus 940). Western Antarctica is losing significant amounts of ice, while eastern Antarctica is compensating somewhat by gaining some ice. That’s consistent with patterns climate scientists have found that show climate change driving increased snowfall in eastern Antarctica, Shepherd told reporters.

           So, what’s the weather like on Planet Key? Must be hot this time of year and with the lack of toilets it must stink but I suspect that you’re used to that by now.
         • jcuknz 6.2.1.1.4

           6 January 2014 at 9:06 am

           I heard on National radio this Monday morning a report about average temperature rise of just one degree … continue like that for a few years and we will all be fried homo sapien.
         • Tracey 6.2.1.1.5

           6 January 2014 at 10:53 am

           are you happier to call it

           the impact of nearly 200 years of human polluting?
     • Naturesong 6.2.2

       5 January 2014 at 11:02 am

       In response you your assertion that there was no warming of surface temperatures from 1998 to 2008: Ocean heat content and Earth’s radiation imbalance. II. Relation to climate shifts

       In other news: 2013 Australia’s hottest year on record, around the world Glaciers are melting at record rates (they’re melting in NZ also).
       • Grumpy 6.2.2.1

         5 January 2014 at 11:28 am

         Up to and including 2013 actually.
         Record cold temperatures in UK and USA. Record ice in Antarctica, in case you missed that.
         The need to change name says it all AGW/climate change/extreme weather………
         The boy who cried wolf has never been so apt….
         http://joannenova.com.au
         • Naturesong 6.2.2.1.1

           5 January 2014 at 11:43 am

           Wow, just wow 😯

           When did ignorance become a valid point of view?
           • Grumpy 6.2.2.1.1.1

             5 January 2014 at 11:52 am

             Get used to it, there are more every day…..
             A more valid response than hysteria. Show us some reality that these models predicted such as an ice free Arctic by now, and we might believe you.
             • mickysavage …

               5 January 2014 at 3:09 pm

               But Grumpy you keep clutching at smaller and smaller straws. The prediction is that overall there will be an increase of AVERAGE temperatures by between 2 degrees and (god help us) 4 degrees. You keep pulling factoids out of your a*&e like it was really cold in New York last week as proof that something is not happening when all the available data shows that it clearly is.

               So we are meant to be happy that some models (which you do not identify) suggested that the Arctic should be ice free with the reality that the ice is melting. The latest IPCC report (which you appear to rely on for some reasons) states:

               The annual mean Arctic sea ice extent decreased over the period 1979 to 2012 with a rate that was very likely in the range 3.5 to 4.1% per decade (range of 0.45 to 0.51 million km2 per decade), and very likely in the range 9.4 to 13.6% per decade (range of 0.73 to 1.07 million km2 per decade) for the summer sea ice minimum (perennial sea ice). The average decrease in decadal mean extent of Arctic sea ice has been most rapid in summer (high confidence); the spatial extent has decreased in every season, and in every successive decade since 1979 (high confidence) (see Figure SPM.3). There is medium confidence from reconstructions that over the past three decades, Arctic summer sea ice retreat was unprecedented and sea surface temperatures were anomalously high in at least the last 1,450 years.

               So let me understand, because arctic ice has not disappeared yet it will not do so even though it is clear that the polar cap is dwindling?
           • Grumpy 6.2.2.1.1.2

             5 January 2014 at 11:58 am

             Take a walk on the wild side…go on, I dare you……:-)
             http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/04/2013-was-not-a-good-year-for-catastrophic-anthropogenic-global-climate-warming-change-disruption-wierding-ocean-acidification-extreme-weather-etc/
             • Naturesong …

               5 January 2014 at 12:06 pm

               Did have a look there.

               Some of the comments there are psychopathic.
               There’s a lot of hatred against scientists.
             • Macro …

               5 January 2014 at 12:15 pm

               watts !! falls on the floor laughing….
               Really Grumpy if that’s the best you can do….
               The man is a failed meteorologist with nil credibility hardly an authority on anything except bile, invective, and misinformation.
               • Grumpy …

                 5 January 2014 at 12:42 pm

                 See my reply to Lprent above. Can’t be that bad, who did the warmists go to when they wanted real weather information?
                 • Macro …

                   5 January 2014 at 12:53 pm

                   ???
                   certainly not to the failed weather man…
                 • RedLogix …

                   5 January 2014 at 1:35 pm

                   Again you confuse weather and climate.

                   For instance we know that the average height of people over the last several generations has increased markedly. We know this because:

                   1. We have an excellent historic record.

                   2. It’s really easy to measure the height of lots of people.

                   Good, reliable, extensive information makes this a pretty reliable conclusion, despite the fact that individuals vary in height a lot, and it’s very noisy data.

                   Now if I looked out the window and the first couple of people who happened to walk past were only 5 ft tall – and then scoffed at this idea that ‘people are getting taller’ – you would accuse me of being an idiot and confusing the noise with the signal.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               5 January 2014 at 6:56 pm

               Dude, everything that watts says has already been proven wrong. The fact that you continue to believe him just shows how stupid and willfully ignorant you are.
         • Macro 6.2.2.1.2

           5 January 2014 at 3:01 pm

           Oh look over there! A squirrel!

           You misunderstand and confuse weather with climate..

           The fact that Aussie has just had its hottest year ever since reliable records began in 1910 whilst not in an El Nino is significant when added to the fact that 12 of the hottest years on record have happened over the past 13 years. It indicates that Australia – as predicted by climate models is a rapidly warming continent. Despite the denial of its current government.

           The increasing sea ice in some areas of Antarctica has also been predicted by Climate models. The two poles are quite different in a number of respects, Antarctica being a large land mass being the most obvious. It is also the coldest place on Earth, so a warming of 3 or 4 degrees C isn’t going to stop the formation of ice particles, But an increasing atmospheric temperature in warmer areas over the oceans, results in the winds blowing down onto the Antarctic carrying much more water vapour. An increase of 1 degree C results in an increased capacity of the atmosphere to hold 4% more water vapour. Thus with a warming planet we can expect greater precipitation events. Increasing ice in an extremely cold climate supports, not invalidates, the science.

           The extreme weather in Europe is another example that can be understood as a result of a warming world. The fact remains that the Arctic is warming rapidly. Far more noticably than Antarctica. Sea ice extent this past year while not as small as last year was far below the average:
           http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images-ocean/si-fig20-big.jpg
           (There is no recovery going on there despite what the weather man tells you.)
           One result of this warming appears to be an increasing gain in height of the troposphere over the Arctic. That might not sound like anything to worry about – but that is where the jet stream lies, and the jet stream determines a lot of our weather. A change in the jet stream pattern may result in a “Blocking Event” an area of persistent High pressure causing High temperatures in one part and low temperatures in another as cold northerly winds (despite warming the Arctic is still a cold place) persist.
           The fact that the average height (over the Arctic in relation to the Equator) of the troposphere has increased in recent years has meant that the northern jet stream has begun to change its pattern unpredictably – the gradient in height between the equator and the North pole has decreased and the jet stream is now freer to wander much more widely than before.
           http://rabett.blogspot.co.nz/2013/08/getting-knotted-climate-change-and-jet.html
           This is recent work and much is not widely understood yet, The UK Met service has recently held a conference to consider these things and I understand that these ideas are the ones they are looking at.
           • Grumpy 6.2.2.1.2.1

             5 January 2014 at 3:56 pm

             Weren’t me that pulled Australia’s warm year out of the hat.
             • Naturesong …

               5 January 2014 at 4:05 pm

               No, that was me.
               Fell into the trap of countering your assertion without enough data to show the trend and only displayed a single instance. Yes, this could have been an outlier, thanks for fleshing it out Macro.

               The fact that glaciers all over the world are disappearing though, that’s a trend.
             • Macro …

               5 January 2014 at 4:42 pm

               No Grumpy I’m well aware that it wasn’t you – but you responded with a “Look over there! A squirrel!” response.. I was merely pointing out that that AS WELL (sorry Lprent haven’t got the hang of bold yet) as the examples of weather you referred to could all be satisfactorily explained in terms of the current science.

               Further recent scientific discussion of extreme weather is detailed by NASA here:
               http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/science/climate_assessment_2012.html
               Note that this is talking solely about the USA and is in degrees F. Nevertheless it echos pretty much what all have been saying.

               If we continue to emit GHG’s at the current rate we are hugely sabotaging our descendants inheritance. Their world will not be the world we live in today and they will rightly despise us for it. That is not what I want to gift my 3mth old grandson, and I suspect you wouldn’t want to deprive your grandchildren either. But that is what we will do if every country doesn’t take this matter seriously. That is why there needs to be universal consent on the matter, that is why NZ must be seen to be doing its part as well, and that is why dissenting voices, such as watts and monchton and abbott and all the rest are little more than bad bacteria, because they delay and obfuscate any positive action.
               • mickysavage …

                 5 January 2014 at 5:54 pm

                 Try http://thestandard.org.nz/faq/comment-formatting/ for formatting tips Macro.
                 • Macro …

                   5 January 2014 at 6:42 pm

                   Thanks micky – its just that when I attempt these things I always seem to have finger trouble …
7. Sanctuary 7

   5 January 2014 at 10:22 am

   USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand… Add David Cameron’s UK and you’ve got the usual neo-liberal morons.
   • greywarbler 7.1

     5 January 2014 at 10:43 am

     And all English speaking too. What do the other developed nations do? Are they betterv than the Enlish speaking league?
     • Foreign Waka 7.1.1

       5 January 2014 at 12:22 pm

       The rest had not have the dubious honor of being a world empire. I would say mainland Europe has a higher expectation regarding ethical behavior because of the history of humanities but even that is on the wane due to mass migration and loss of original cultures. Asia is not interested in their own peoples well being, why would they for the rest of the world? Africa is still not ready to let go of the notion that one have to hit the neighbor over the head. The Spanish speaking world is still in the conquistador environment and all in all it is not a pretty picture. Morons the world over.
8. greywarbler 8

   5 January 2014 at 10:42 am

   There was a radio report about Ngai Tahu I think getting concerned about Japanese plans to take humpbacked as well as minke whales and another type this year for ‘scientific purposes’. Japanese are protective of their rice growers though talking about cutting out subsidies to join with TPPA, and may want to ensure they can feed themselves no matter what. That is a climate change problem too.

   But in our part of the world the pressure to consider treaties is on TPPA and I don’t know if China is involved. I feel it is a naked attempt by USA to spread its net widely in this part of the world and catch all the advantages. Climate considerations are getting attention within the USA states.. But at the federal level what?

   Continuing on the whale-catching reduction rather than sticking on cessation is one of the things we could be doing something about. within a list of actions. We have tried, formal bodies have tried, but they need to get at the emotional heart of this to end it, or instead bring it down to a fixed number. This could apply to Japan and the other northern states that have used the whales for food and tools. And not have commercial business built on their catches.

   But climate change actions for NZ. Has a list been prepared by NZ experts that we could see?
   If one has been put on could someone be good and give me a hand. I shouldn’t be spending much time on the blog as I’ve got so much to do. Have to rush out between showers for outside stuff.
9. Sosoo 9

   5 January 2014 at 10:50 am

   As I’ve said before. Unless you have a plan to remove conservatives from the political process, nothing will be done about climate change. It should be obvious now that climate policy is a third rail for them.

   So how are you going to make this work politically? The current, democratic method does not work.
   • Sanctuary 9.1

     5 January 2014 at 11:24 am

     “… Unless you have a plan to remove conservatives from the political process…”

     We should be all well past realising that the developed world will do nothing substantial about reducing emissions to stop climate change.

     The only way to save the planet is to stop exclusively relying on reducing emissions to save us , and get Lockheed-Martin to buy enough politicians to fund the various giant geo-engineering projects (greenhouse gas remediation/sequestration technologies, atmospheric aerosol spraying, even the possibility of space based sunshades) that will be need to be developed to save us (and every other creature on this planet) from ourselves.

     I suspect (for example) that the promise of several nice trips to the USA for ego stroking funded by the (currently fictional) US Climate Change Action Super PAC (made up of leading US Corporations) would more than enough to turn David Farrar and Cameron Slater into fervent supporters of the need to do something about climate change.
     • Corokia 9.1.1

       5 January 2014 at 2:57 pm

       Geo engineering won’t solve the problem of ocean acidification, the other consequence of burning fossil fuels.
   • Draco T Bastard 9.2

     5 January 2014 at 7:10 pm

     The current, democratic method does not work.

     The current system is not democratic.
10. Corokia 10

    5 January 2014 at 10:57 am

    Right on Naturesong and it’s no coincidence I’m sure. IMO James Hansen’s fee and dividend scheme should be investigated as a way of reducing GHGs. Fossil fuels are taxed and the money is returned to citizens on a per capita basis. It would cost more to fill your car, but everyone gets the same cheque back. The bozos I’ve seen with their massive SUVs and jetskis will pay through the nose for their climate damaging hobby but the extra tax is shared out evenly and given back, so a solo mum can buy the kids decent raincoats. It looks like we need a price on carbon because there is no sign that many are voluntarily cutting fossil fuel use. Under the ETS National accuses the left of wanting to make the poor pay more for energy, under Fee and Dividend, the poor get some money back to help pay the bills.
11. Flip 11

    5 January 2014 at 11:02 am

    I think because it requires global agreement to pay for waste (CO2 etc) to reduce demand for fuels, it is not going to happen. Sad but true. Some attempts will be made but the strategy will be an adaptive one. Basically the rich countries/people will secure the resources to adapt and the rest of the world will burn, freeze, drown and be blown away.
    Unless there is some form of overwhelming representation of future generations then the current generation will use whatever is economically possible. Markets fail to account adequately for non-renewable resources, environmental degradation, waste or long term effects so it is economically possible to exploit resources.
    The incessant demand for growth (even from Labour) fails to consider a resource constrained environment and future generations. What Labour should be advocating for is sustainability rather than growth. Quantitative growth (growth that uses more raw material resources) should be reduced and discouraged. Qualitative growth (added value, recycling, reuse and development that makes more efficient use of raw material resources) should be encouraged.
    • RedbaronCV 11.1

      5 January 2014 at 12:05 pm

      Your last paragraph makes perfect sense Flip but I think for public consumption needs to be broken down into small word soundbites. “we are running out of planet to dig up”.

      I really don’t think that there is a problem convincing people that we are warming up and running out of resources (the price of petrol is doing that) but it’s a very large scary abstract thing to actually think about so most just hurriedly think of something else. Having the large goals in the background but smaller more comprehensible goals up front may be the way to go?
      • Flip 11.1.1

        5 January 2014 at 3:00 pm

        Some thoughts for starters.

        1.Have a ‘Ministry for the Future’ to represent future generations who are not represented in our current systems. A bit naff, but all policies/laws would have to be reviewed in the light of future generations perspective.
        2. Ensure that products sold in NZ pay the cost of disposal, pollution, waste. Would encourage the production of low waste products by taxing disposable products. Reduce the throw away society. Tax waste to reduce.
        3.Use revenue from non-renewable energy resources to move to renewable energy resources. It is not just the cost of extraction paid by the miners but the cost of it not being there for the future.
    • Draco T Bastard 11.2

      5 January 2014 at 7:24 pm

      Markets fail to account adequately for non-renewable resources, environmental degradation, waste or long term effects so it is economically possible to exploit resources.

      To be more precise, the markets are specifically prevented from accounting for these things. They could be accounted for with the correct regulation but, as National’s gutting of the RMA proves, that regulation is either not put in place or removed so that polluting industries can continue.

      The reality is that for a market system to work requires massive regulation.

      The incessant demand for growth (even from Labour) fails to consider a resource constrained environment and future generations.

      And that is what makes our socio-economic system truly fatal to the world.

      Quantitative growth (growth that uses more raw material resources) should be reduced and discouraged. Qualitative growth (added value, recycling, reuse and development that makes more efficient use of raw material resources) should be encouraged.

      QFT
12. Philj 12

    5 January 2014 at 11:52 am

    Xox
    Not to mention population pressure in NZ. (humans not dairy cows!) Heavens above, do we have a population policy in NZ? We a seriously a joke. Haha.
13. Foreign Waka 13

    5 January 2014 at 12:13 pm

    NZ can reforest and contribute to a better outcome and the local farmers should do their part (good luck with that).
    However, in a global context we are at the mercy of the big polluters, countries or companies, and warming oceans influencing weather profoundly.
    Underwater volcanoes are heating up oceans, nuclear waste dumped there has and will create huge problems and rubbish island floating around at exorbitant sizes are all part of the dying of the sea which will affect us hugely. Some impact is already very visible.

    If NZ is not pulling their weight they will not have a voice at the international stage to even contribute to solutions.

    http://science.time.com/2013/11/01/oceans-warming-faster-than-they-have-over-past-10000-years/
    http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/oceans/pollution/trash-vortex/
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304773104579268563658319196
14. rich the other 14

    5 January 2014 at 1:06 pm

    [RL: Deleted. Illiterate, ignorant and disrespectful rants not needed.]
15. BrucetheMoose 15

    5 January 2014 at 1:23 pm

    The current state of affairs by our government in regards to climate change is no surprise when you have a leader who considers our 100% Pure Green image as more akin to McDonalds marketing. It’s all crusty buns, processed cheese, fatty patties and the token lettuce leaf for the wholesome eat your greens aspect. Bon apatite and get into it, as long as you ignore your blood pressure or cholesterol levels. Thing is, when you have a cardiac arrest, you may have a chance with modern medical care and some pills, but when the sea starts lapping the front door of your water front McMansion, you are well and truly buggered by then.
16. tricledrown 16

    5 January 2014 at 1:55 pm

    Gumpy
    Your bs on the antartic while the seaonal sea ice may be expanding from time to time the permanent Ice is dissapearing rapidly.
    The effects of global warming on the Antartic are happening at 5 times that of the rest of the planet.
    Documentry on Choice tv yesterday and today on demand.
    They have increased the number of scientists studying the Antarctic from 100s to 1,000s.
    So
    Gumpy
    You are in the same category as the flat earthers.
    Religious nut jobs that believe evolution didn’t happen.
    In your cohort it still hasn’t happened.
17. Macro 17

    5 January 2014 at 2:01 pm

    ” National sounded like it understood the extent of the problem but then backed off and we now have an ETS that is worse than useless”

    They have NEVER understood the extent of the problem, they fought tooth and nail over every proposed regulation designed to deal with growing GHG Emissions whilst in Opposition – despite Simon Upston’s work as Minister for the Environment in the early 1990’s. This was primarily the result of the farming lobby, which has been the basis of their support over the decades. Grocer says much but speaks mostly with a forked tongue, as his actions speak louder than his words.

    Anyone who voted for National on the basis that they would have the remotest interest in the environment or dealing with limiting this country’s GHG emissions was simply a fool.
18. Ad 18

    5 January 2014 at 2:22 pm

    I think we are beyond “prevent” and deep into “mitigate”.

    I can’t see any international treaties occurring in future. If a capitalist order can’t generate a World Trade Organisation that can’t run a global system of trade, I can’t see much chance of the same occurring for carbon or methane.

    If I were in government (perish that), I would:

    – let regions and the Courts decide if they want more dams to mitigate droughts. I would trust the people to figure that one, without interference.

    – enable the NZ dollar to deflate so that the pump-price of petroleum is fully felt by consumers

    – regulate the price of water across NZ and hence indirectly regulate the dairy industry, and require metering in every centre over 50,000 people

    – require every city over 50,000 people to have a public transport system, and set targets and rewards though the GPS for that

    If I had any political capital to spend after that, I’d reinstate the rule requiring freight carried over x hundred Kms had to go by rail (or air and ship if overseas).

    It’s the last one that would cost me as PM, because the truckie firms would march as they did last time. The rest would just be fresh tasks for local government.
    • The Mad Plumber 18.1

      5 January 2014 at 2:52 pm

      Ecan have recently (last 2/3 yrs) made the installation of water meters compulsory cannot remember by when because nobody knew for certain if you had used your allocation, Horse and Barn door spring to mind. Didn’t a council around Wellington run into trouble over water meters. Another problem that is happening is Ecans/Irrigation NZ promoting of an inferior method of preventing contamination of underground water by Chemicals and Effluent all to save a few thousand $ on irrigation set ups.
      ,
19. Ad 19

    5 January 2014 at 2:27 pm

    [Fixed for ya – MS]
20. BLiP 20

    5 January 2014 at 4:26 pm

    ‘

    Its not just climate change that’s being ignored. In fact, the John Key-led National Government will go down in (what remains of) history as the single government most determined to destroy New Zealand in order to satisfy the short term business requirments of its business mates. Since his election as Prime Minister, John Key has smiled and wave as he and his minsters . . .

    been caught out repeatedly lying in the run up to and during the election campaign about its real intentions in relation to the environment

    celebrated the opening of the foreign-owned Pike River Coal Ltd mine on DOC land adjacent to the Paparoa National Park from which 1 megatonne of coal will be extracted per year for the next 20 years – Pike River Coal Ltd has announced that it has found additional coal in the national park

    cancelled a proposed efficiency standard (MEPS) on incandescent lightbulbs

    reversed a moratorium on building new gas/oil/coal power stations

    removed the bio fuel subsidy

    scrapped the scheme that would have penalised imported vehicles producing high emissions

    removed regulations for water efficient new housing by Order in Council

    renewed leases on sensitive high country farms which were meant to return to DOC

    reversed restrictions on the freeholding of vast swathes of land on the edge of the Southern Lakes

    arbitrarily excised 400 hectares from the brand new Oteake Conservation Park, including the most important and, ecologically, the rarest part of the new Park, the tussock and shrubland that went right down to the banks of the Manuherikia River, to enable future access to lignite

    said nothing to say in regard to the World Commission on Protected areas of IUCN’s severe criticism of its intention to investigate mineral resources and mining opportunities in protected conservation areas including our three UNESCO World Heritage Sites of Te Wahi Pounamu-South West New Zealand, Tongariro National Park and the Sub Antarctic Islands

    approved two prospecting permit applications lodged by Australian iron-ore giant Fortescue Metals Group subsidiary FMG Pacific lodged in June – areas covered by the two-year permits include an 8204-square-kilometre area of seabed adjoining the west coast from Cape Reinga to the Manukau Harbour and a 3798-square-kilometre prospecting area of land from Cape Reinga to the Kaipara Harbour including Ninety Mile Beach, the west side of the Aupouri Peninsula, Kaitaia and the Hokianga.

    approved an additional prospecting permit for Fortescue Metals in relation to 3568sq km right next door to the Kahurangi National Park where the Heaphy Track is

    was forced to release its Ministry of Economic Development (MED) report under the Official Information Act that proclaims “significant mineral potential” in the Fiordland, Kahurangi and Paparoa national parks – the report said the Waitutu area of the Fiordland National Park had sufficient petroleum reserves to be “worthy” of inclusion in a review of conservation land protected from mining

    secretly granted the minerals industry the right to veto proposed National Park boundaries and permission for any such vetoes to be kept confidential – in spite of recommendations from its own officials against any such a veto

    called for caring New Zealanders to halt their “emotional hysteria” and recognise that conservation land should be mined for minerals and went on to say “Mining in a modern, technological way can have a negligible effect”

    rubished the Department of Conservation (“Canterbury Farming” June 2010 issue – now offline) suggesting it was incapable of looking after the high country reserves and parks under its control

    gutted the home insulation scheme

    pulled $300 million out of public transport, walking and cycling schemes and added it to a pot of $2 billion to ‘upgrade’ state highways

    changed the law to provide billions of dollar in subsidies for polluters via the ETS casino

    begun a process of gutting the Resource Management Act to make it difficult/impossible for the public to lodge appeals against developers

    removed the ability of Auckland to introduce a fuel levy to fund planned public transport upgrades

    left electrification of the Auckland rail network up in the air without promised funding commitments and then came through with a dodgy loan scheme and then unilaterally reorganised the local government structure before finally setting about the privatisation-by-stealth model when busting KiwiRail

    removed the programme to make Government Departments ‘carbon neutral’ and also began its first wave of public sector redundancies starting with the Ministry for the Environment which was responsible for the scheme

    removed funding for public tv advertising on sustainability and energy efficiency

    pulled funding for small-town public litter bin recycling schemes

    displayed cabinet ministers expressing public support the bulldozing of Fiordland

    reduced Department of Conservation funding by $54 million over three years

    cancelled funding for the internationally acclaimed ‘Enviroschools’ programme

    usurped the democratic role of local Councils of determining policies for their citizens by requiring the abandonment of the efficient and well-established tree protection rules for urban areas

    set about revamping Auckland governance in a way that is likely to greatly reduce the ‘Environmental Watchdog’ role of the the current Regional Council (since completely fucked it up with the SuperShitty)

    removed Auckland’s metropolitan limits and opened the gateway for unfettered urban sprawl

    defended internationally the importation of rain-forest-wrecking palm kernel and stood silent while Federated Farmers called Greenpeace “despicable” criminals, traitors, and robbers

    stood silent while Godfrey Bloom, a Member of the European Parliament and infamous Climate Change Denialist, publicly rejoiced in the 1985 bombing of the Greenpeace Rainbow Warrior – who was doing so while standing on a dock next to the replacement vessel

    took a 0% emissions reduction target to Copenhagen. Yes, seriously, that isn’t a misprint – that was the lower bound of their negotiation platform – then missed the 01/02/10 deadline for commitment to action it had agreed to – meanwhile 55 of the 80 countries which attended did make the deadline

    secretly cancelled the internationally recognised scheme for the mandatory labelling of exotic woods to ensure the timber has not been taken from rain forests in direct contradiction of its own statements made at the 13th World Forestry Congress in Argentina

    supported the Department of Conservation’s decision to open up the pristine Cathedral Cove to an ice-cream franchise

    gave the Department of Conservsation $1.7 million to further develop commercial activities on DOC land and started an “off set” plan allowing company’s to damage the conservation estate if they agree to improve land elsewhere – no monitoring regime has been suggested on put in place

    left DOC director-general Al Morrison to announce that DOC is to charge for services that had been free and, to soften the public up to the idea that there will be more “energy generation schemes” operating on DOC land

    took no action to reduce existing pollution pouring into the Manawatu River and is “leaving it up to industry” to come up with solutions to heal the river which was described by the Cawthorn Institute as “one of the worst polluted in the Western world”

    announced a $1.69 million industry subsidy to kick start marine farming without identifying no-go areas nor putting in place a consultation process for individiuals, communities, and other general coastal users

    been forced to release documents under the Official Information Act which confirm that DOC has “giving up” on ecologically valuable high-country land in the Mackenzie Basin because of funding cuts. The released documents cite “statements made by ministers”, “diminishing funding” and the Government’s new high-country policies as reasons for the changed stance – the comments from DOC were made after Land Information New Zealand (Linz), which manages the tenure review process, ignored DOC’s previous conservation recommendations for the farms

    used former National Party minister and current director of Open Country Cheese – a company convicted of filthy farming practices and found by the supreme court to be a dodgy employer – Wyatt Creech to head up an enquiry into Environment Canterbury which had been standing up the dairy farmers’ demands for more and more water resources and less and less regulation. The Creech report recommended the Environmental Canterbury be sacked and replaced with government appointments and the voters of Canterbury do without democracy until the water situation had been resolved. The Canterbury area holds 50 percent of New Zealand’s fresh water reserves and 50 percent of the water required for hyrdo energy. The Creech report said Environmental Centerbury put too much focus on the environment

    been subjected to international condemnation for knowing next to nothing about the parlous state of the New Zealand fisheries

    bucked international trends and poured more acid on the 100% Pure brand and increases the bluefin tuna quota

    squirmed when New Zealand is subject to international criticism for its backing of commericial whaling which National Ltd supports

    funded Government-owned company Solid Energy runs an essay competition entitled “ The role of coal in sustainable energy solutions for New Zealand” for school children. First prize is a trip to New Zealand’s largest coal customer, China.

    supported access fees for entrance onto DOC walkways – fee introduced following cuts to DOC’s budget.

    pressed on with PR bullshit about how New Zealand’s environment would profit from mining national parks, Conservation Minister Kate Wilkinson says.

    Department of Conservation director-general Al Morrison said the conservation estate created “opportunities to do a whole lot for a lot of different people . . . we’ve got to get away from this idea that somehow we have to protect one-third of New Zealand for a certain constituency and put it in a jar of formaldehyde and leave it

    created random fantasies of abundant wealth to promote all forms of mining

    ignored reports on sustained non-compliance with resource consents and worsening pollution of water ways.

    ignored its own Ministers possible conflicts of interest

    done nothing as both its own SOE Meridian and the Department of Conservation to withdraw appeals against an 85m high damn with a 14km long reservoir on conservation land.

    granted Energy Resources permission to ship Australian yellowcake uranium ore through New Zealand.

    apologised but does nothing else for breaching the Treaty of Waitangi by granting a mining exploration permit to Brazilian company Petrobras

    continued to remove environmental protection powers from local authorities

    totally reversed gains made in the protection of National Parks and other high-value conservation areas in the South Island.

    commenced a divide-and-rule strategy by attempting to paint New Zealanders interested in protecting the environment as outside of the “mainstream” and in defence of the fact that the media is catching to its bare-faced lies in the lead up to the 2008 election

    carried on with more lies by talking about modern mining like that at Reefton being carried out by Oceana Golds as being like “key hole surgery”

    appeared to believe that the tourists it is attempting to bring to New Zealand are all blind and won’t see for themselves the impact of the dairy farming it is subsidising to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars

    appeared itself to be blind when it comes to the Chairman of Fonterra

    forced the Commissioner for the Environment to delay the release of a report into the ramifications for climate change in regard to lignite mining and proposals to convert the lignite into diesel

    employed financial sleight of hand in shuffling funds towards business interests and away from community groups looking to protect the environment

    made more empty promises when a report showing that a third of New Zealand lankes have poor quality water is released

    backed down on promises to protect New Zealand children (and the environment cleaner by more informed disposal) from harmful chemicals by improving labeling and imposing mandatory standards on containers

    Ignored the findings by attacking the messenger when a World Health Organisation report confirms that New Zealand’s main centres have the worst air in Australasia and Auckland is the most polluted with twice the concentration of damaging airborne particles as Sydney.

    studiously ignored so as to take piss about dire warnings concerning the quality of drinking water in Reidstone

    failed to mention in its 100% Pure promotions that visitors to the Kerikeri Basin near the Stone Store – one of Northland’s iconic tourism and heritage sites – could come face-to-face with warning signs telling them the water is polluted

    failed to mention in its 100% Pure promotions that tourists in the Coromandel could come face to face with New Zealand’s environmental standards when finding hundreds of dead snapper washed up on Beaches

    presented bogus evidence concerning air pollution

    made more empty promises in relation to air pollution while also extending deadlines for local councils to reduce air pollution

    extended deadlines for businesses previously require to reduce air pollution by 2013

    put tourism operators in Akaroa at risk by refusing to make the harbour a marine reserve . . . and then rubs salt into their wounds

    done nothing after the United Nations finds that National Ltd™’s targets for reducing pollution are not consistent with the measures put in place to achieve those targets

    attempted to defend the Emissions Trading Scheme from comparisons with the Australian model while Environment Minister Nick Smith indicates there’s little chance of the two schemes being integrated any time soon

    then further slowed down the implentation of New Zealand’s Emissions Trading Scheme

    allowed major retailers to reap the benefits of its earlier and secret decision to abandon the mandatory labelling of exotic woods after it is found that the retailers are contributing to the death of native Australian forests despite an independent, year-long investigation which finds otherwise

    tried to keep a meeting between John Key and mininng company Anadarko’s boss secret. The company is responsble for a massive oil spill and is looking to to start drilling off New Zealand soon

    continued to ignore yet more evidence of farmers failing to comply with environmental regulations

    handed over $400 million to farmers to extend water storage and allow for more land to be used for dairy farms. No mention or provision is made for additional protections required to deal with the increased pollution

    failed to point out in its 100% Pure promotion that tourists (and locals) should avoid the Opihi River along State Highway 1 because of the risk of exposure to toxins from phormidium

    failed to point out in its 100% Pure promotions that tourists arriving at New Zealand’s “nuclear free” sea ports will be sharing the environment with up to 5,000 tonnes of radioactive yellow cake uranium

    lied about how bad the RMA is

    ignored top scientists and academics who point out that its underfunding of the Department of Conservation will send more species into extinction and hurt its 100% Pure image.

    Ignored John Key making an international arse out of himself in regard to New Zealand’s 100% Pure image

    carried on with its lies as New Zealand is identified as jeoparising its good name by allowing us to become one of a small number of states stalling progress in forming an international climate agreement
    kept stringing us along even after Next thing, New Zealand received the 2nd place Fossil Award for “proposing the most Flexible Mechanism imaginable with no oversight or review. Bring on the wild west. They want to be able to use any market mechanisms they wish with absolutely no oversight or international review! There would be no way to ensure that the units from one mechanism have not been sold two or three times to another such mechanism. This would likely unleash a wild west carbon market with double or triple counting of offsets and a likely increase of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.”

    stood silent when Fonterra was caught out lying by overstating its farmer’s compliance on excluding stock from waterways by 100%

    put World class surfing waves and Maui’s dolphin’s at Raglan at severe risk by encouraging a proposed iron ore seabed mining in New Zealand’s coastal waters

    never followed up after the scientific models created by New Zealand and the Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) to allow fishing are called into question

    set the scene for our children heading down to the park to find an overseas’ owned company had set up a dairy farm in one corner. Over time the shit builds up

    ignored data which shows the expansion of fish-farming in the Marlborough Sounds could cause unacceptable changes in the coastal environment

    strategically removed the word “environment” from the lexicon of local and central government

    failed to tell the tourists it hopes to attact with its 100% Pure campaign that every year, New Zealand drops huge quantities of poison-laced food into its forest ecosystems; enough poison to kill its human population 4 times over, every year. No country has ever done anything remotely similar, on such a scale

    failed to tell the tourists it hopes to attract with its 100% Pure campaign that more than a third of Auckland’s beaches fail water quality checks and are closed for swimming

    ignored the closing of the beaches, this time as extremely high concentrations of the bacteria enterococci are identified
    ignored Ministerial conflicts of interest, this time involving John Key who is identified as shareholder in the Bank Of America which is backing mining in New Zealand and Australia . . . even when more information is made available . . . and more information . . . and more information

    pressed on with additional policies that move away from the protection of the environment towards exploitation

    limited , as part of its effort to cash-in on the environment, access to some of New Zealand’s most endangered species and isolated islands only to those who those who contribute financially displacing conservation staff and scientists

    ignored a World Wildlife Fund report, Beyond Rio, which makes clear New Zealand now risks some of the highest rates of biodiversity loss on Earth unless urgent action is taken

    continued to give confidence to Fonterra director Colin Armer being convicted and fined $72,000 for “fouling” a Bay of Plenty waterway after a judge found he could have prevented the pollution were it not for his “systemic” failure to monitor what was happening on his company’s farm

    lied when it said New Zealand has the environmental laws and regulations to control oil and gas development on the continental shelf because there is no equivalent of the Resource Management Act to control oil and gas activity outside of the territorial sea (12 nautical miles offshore).
    lied when it had already agreed coastal plans to allow marine farming consent holders in the Waikato and Marlborough to move from mussel farming to finfish farming without considering the additional environmental effects imposed

    placed short-term business interests ahead of long-term consequences to New Zealand’s environment, particularly biodiversity by allowing damage in one area on the condition that it be “off set” in another creating a dangerous precedent in that such a provisin means that one part of biodiversity can be wrecked in return for “protecting” an area that was never under threat anyway.

    promoted proposals that include include a plant producing about 2 billion litres of diesel per year, using at least 12 million tonnes of lignite per year and another producing 3 billion litres using 12-17 million tonnes of lignite annually. A further project would produce by 2016 1.2 tonnes of the nitrogenous fertiliser, urea, using 2 million tonnes of lignite annually

    tried to hide the fact that its Department of Conservation was ordered to permit Meridian to to build a damn on the Mohikinui River despite its position that “the public conservation land within the Mokihinui River has such high value that it is most unlikely to be suitable for exchange at all

    continued to ignore the slow-motion extinction of Maui’s dolphins:

    gone into hiding after it was discovered that significant cuts to the Ministry for the Environment in the 2012 Budget are not publicly detailed or announced

    continued to ignore its international obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea to “protect and preserve” the martime environment

    refused in the face of repeated calls to set national standards for water quality despite mounting evidence of the need to do so

    further weakened protection for wild rivers in Canterbury with the ECan Act and indicates that further weakening provisions will follow.

    rubber stamped a motorway project with no economic benefit and likely to waste over $1 billion of tax payers’ funds.

    been forced to admit that it has spent $1.67 million in a survey of minerals on the West Coast of New Zealand, including within the Te Wahipounamu South West New Zealand world heritage area. Te Wahipounamu is one of 183 natural heritage

    secretly ordered that world heritage sites on the West Coast be surveyed as part of a $3 million mineral study spanning more than 16,000 square kilometres. The survey was only puiblicy revealed after Green MP Catherine Delahunty asked for details in a parliamentary question

    appointed thoroughtly unsuitable but politically useful members to the Establishment Board for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

    facilitated by neglect the employment of inexperienced managers, making poor policy decisions resulting in additional threats to New Zealand’s biosecurity.

    under resourced New Zealand’s biosecurity system to such an extent that it is fundamentally flawed preventing any way of identifying how the Kiwifruit killer virus got into New Zealand and, thus, no way of preventing it from happening again.

    handed over a further $80 million to business and farmers to subsidise their pollution.

    ignored its own guidelines to provide consent the Milford Dart tunnel and Fiordland Link Experience which would otherwise never have been granted.

    appointed an advisory group to recommend a significant rewrite of the Resource Management Act to remove references to the protection of coastal areas, wetlands, lakes and rivers and indigenous flora and fauna.

    splashed tax payer cash around its consultants considering conservation and environmental protection of the Mackenze Basin and Waitaki Valley

    further weakened the resource consent process for foreign-owned mining companies,

    locked New Zealanders out of the consultation process on the alloting of areas being made available for resource exploration.

    ignored the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment and scrapped government grants for solar water heating

    used the Navy along with police and Crown Law to bully environmental protesters in a legal case they knew could not be won

    put 23 massive blocks of deep and wild waters east of Wellington and Dunedin on the international market for exploratory oil drilling

    allowed its own consultants do a u-turn on the economic benefits of additional roading and then handed them a $200 million contract for further consultation work

    Supported the Department of Conservation into granting foreign-owned multinational mining company OceanaGold permission to destroy 55 hectares of beech forest so as to extend its Reefton mine to a total 81 hectares without public notification

    envouraged the Minerals Industry Association to bully local authorities to step aside from what little environmental protections they are able to impose

    reduced its environment agencies to little more than a ramshackle collection of underfunded and ineffective small back offices with no direction or policy for dealing with the vast marine resources of New Zealand

    eroded New Zealand’s bio-security to such an extent that Christchurch Airport is found to have failed at a basic level

    removed the directive terms “protect”, “preserve”, “maintain” and “enhance” from the RMA fundamentally weakening the legislation and deliberately introducing confusion as to its overall intent.

    futher ensured that New Zealand tax payers continue to subsidise 95% of big polluters’ emissions

    drastically reduced the size of proposed marine reserves off the West Coast so much so that one advocate says they are “an insult” to those who spent years trying to establish them

    instructed its delegates at the world’s largest conservation conference , the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s conference in Korea, to oppose any further measures to protect Maui and Hector dolphins in defiance of 117 other countries and 460 environmental organisations requesting New Zealand ban gill and trawl nets in waters up to 100 metres deep

    lied about the environmental impact of fraking

    refused to enforce its own legislation to protect the environment

    ignored concerns about fracking which has seen the practise banned around the world

    twisted the knife by exploiting news of redundancies at Solid Energy in a statement which claims opponents to a proposed mine are “getting in the way of” potential jobs as part of an effort to discourage legal action

    changed to law allowing a consideration of the effects on climate change to allow Australian-owned mining company Bathurst Resources (also known as Buller Coal) to build a 200-hectare open-cast coal mine on the plateau and excavate 80 million tonnes of coal that, when burnt, will release about 200 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere

    further ensured the extinction of New Zealand sea lions by failing to extend necessary fishing restrictions

    failed to protect the New Zealand marine environment and ignored international obligation with its Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf Act oil drilling legislation

    continued to obfuscate and dither while More than half of monitored recreational sites on our rivers are declared unsafe for swimming

    ignored its own scientific evidence and advice from its own authorities to lock-in tax payer funding of business which pollutes New Zealand’s air

    refused to enforce its own laws in respect to water pollution

    changed the law to make it more difficult to build a deck on a house than it is to drill for oil

    avoided its international obligations “to ensure the conservation and management of sharks and their long-term sustainable use” while its fishers carry on with the barbaric practise of shark finning.

    ignored public support for conservation by ordering another round of cuts to the Department of Conservation.

    stood alone at the world’s largest conservation summit and voted against more protection for species at risk

    further gutted environmental protection legislation to speed up the building consent process for developers

    vancelled without notice the five-yearly State of the Environment report put together by the Ministry of the Environment, the report is the largest stock-take of trends relating to land, water, air, plants and animals

    abandoned the Kyoto agreement completely

    allowed its on lobbyist to publicly attack a prominent New Zealand scientist for speaking truth about New Zealand’s environment in an effort to silence the accurate reporting of scientific evidence

    attracted international mockery for the fact that the pristine landscape featured in The Hobbit and used as the basis for the 100% Pure New Zealand campaign as fantastical as dragons and wizards

    remained “relaxed” about the fact that New Zealand is now the 18th worst out of 189 nations when it came to preserving its natural environment

    pulled out of Kyoto just weeks after the OECD reports that global greenhouse gas emissions could rise 50 per cent by 2050 without more ambitious climate policies, as fossil fuels continue to dominate the energy mix

    laughed when New Zealand received two “Fossil of the Day” – first-equal and second place – awards on the first day of international climate talks in Doha, Qatar

    used Hobbiton – Waikato – as the centrepiece of its 100% Pure campaign when the area is the country’s major source of pollution to the Hauraki Gulf

    handed over responsibility for the monitoring and reporting of fraking activity , for which it has inadequate legal protections, to the foreign-owned multi-nationals which are carrying out that activity thus totally ignoring its own Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment

    lied, obfuscated and used government resources to attack and undermined local authority plans to improve water quality
    sanctioned an unnamed foreign-owned multinational to go ahead with a major road through pristine South Island National Parks

    employed disingenuous gobbledeegook to defend its decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Agreement.

    turned a deaf ear to calls for New Zealand to assist pacfic island nations by taking a stronger position on climate change

    displayed contempt for existing agreements and Environment Case law by approving new salmon farms in recreational areas within the Marlborough Sounds

    refused to investigate the impact on increasing use of neonicotinoid pesticides which is likely to be a major contributor to the sudden and dramatic decline (aka colony collapse disorder) of the New Zealand honey bee population, National Ltd™ also refused to consider the development of a strategy to protect what is left of the honey bee population.

    lied about its commitment to addressing climate change

    failed to monitor Sanford Ltd’s pollution resulting in an international embarrassment

    allowed foreign-owned multinationals to proceed with oil exploration without the financial resources available to mitigate any environmental damage should it occur

    been caught out ignoring its own advice on implementing environmental monitoring procedures

    used changes to the Resource Management Act to remove local authorty’s rights and planning for the protection of trees

    commenced removing local authority’s rights to plan for housing

    allowed more than 53 percent of Canterbury’s major water users to avoid having meters installed

    mixed the cooperative model of climate change negotiations with the competitive model used in trade negotiations, thus putting outcomes in both areas a risk

    ducked questions asking for evidence as to the safety of genetically engineered food

    ignored the fact that New Zealand carbon credits are no longer the unit of choice in the New Zealand’s own carbon market. Figures from the official Emission Unit Registry show that emitters who initially supported NZUs are now using a range of international units to meet their carbon obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme

    used highly dodgy figures in calculating the reduction New Zealand’s net carbon emissions by including trees due to be harvested in the next few years

    ignored news that New Zealand’s first glyphosate resistant weed has been found and the resulting call for the use of glyphosate (Monsanto’s “Roundup”) to cease

    stayed silent for five months after being advised that Fonterra’s milk product were contaminated with dicyandiamide (DCD) and now face an international backlash.

    set no maximum level of contamination of dicyandiamide (DCD) (AKA cyanoguanidine) in milk products for consumption by New Zealanders, stood silent while the farming industry says the withdrawal of dicyandiamide (DCD) will result in yet more pollution of New Zealand’s waterways

    stood silent as NIWA announced findings of research which showed 20 per cent of marine life in the Milford Sounds port area could be killed off as a result of copper leaching from anti-fouling paints on boat hulls

    secretly without consultation and any right of appeal used a short-term draconian law to ammend a water conservation order for the Rakaia River

    been locked out of the international carbon market because of its trucculent attitude

    continued in its efforts to eliminate tree protection of any kind in Auckland and elsewhere

    stood alone as the only developed country not to have tabled an unconditional single number target as part of the international climate change negotiations

    cut funding into research about protecting the last remaining giant kauri

    continued to endanger the 100% Pure brand

    been unable to explain how genetically engineered mould escaped from Massey University laboratories and remains unable or unwilling to provide further information

    introduced foreign species without a consideration of the risk to human health

    allowed oil companies to ignore breaches of resource consent and set neihhbours against neighbours

    obfuscated on the negative economic benefits of major raod works

    obfuscated on the level of cuts to the Department of Conservation

    disengaged the previously widely held concept of environmental protection from any consideration of economic development

    sacked 140 staff at the Department of Conservation

    inserted last minute changes to environmental legislation that were not announced and, thus, not considered during public submissions and earlier readings of Bills.

    lied about the practise of fracking going on in New Zealand for the past 30 years

    funded its Economic Development Ministry’s membership of the Coal Association lobby group

    staged a consultation process on the restructuring for the Department of Conservation and then completely ignored any submissions generated

    proposed handing over recreational paua gathering areas to commercial operators

    opened a further 190,000 square kilometers of New Zealand’s coastal waters for oil exploration

    allowed the Minister of Energy’s own political adviser to make public calls for the boycotting of the environmental iniative Earth House

    held secret meetings with oil company executives known international as irresponsible and mendacious

    exposed Auckland beaches to the unmonitored risk of oil exploration by companies unable to afford any clean up operations if required

    breached international law and used parliamentary urgency and ignored international guidelines to rush through legislation depriving New Zealanders of the right to protest against drilling for oil within 350 miles if New Zealand coast

    given permission for oil drilling to take place over earthquake ridden continental plate fault lines just off shore from Wellington

    stood idle while water quality used by households continyes to worsen

    ensured that the MacKenzie Basin is turned from a conservation estate into a development area

    used parliamentary urgency to avoid public notification, consultation and/or consideration of a law allowing companies with no experience nor financial resources to drill for oil on earthquake-ridden fault lines lying in New Zealand coastal waters

    here would be significant and irreversible adverse effects on the conservation values and overall ecological integrity of the application area and the Denniston Plateau should the proposed activity be approved”?

    . . . but wait, there’s more still waiting to be put into list format:

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0903/S00452.htm <— back up on Chris Bishop

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10869801 <— irony much

    It is disgusting that if you are a sportsperson you get no conviction for an offence that endangered peoples lives because it might affect their ability to play overseas, but an actress convicted for taking part in an environmental protest gets no such consideration.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1306/S00244/savage-attack-on-bee-health.htm

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1306/S00240/positive-changes-to-fishing-regulations-announced.htm

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1306/S00219/report-highlights-risk-of-governments-mining-agenda.htm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10892481

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/pollution/news/article.cfm?c_id=281&objectid=10884397

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10892985

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1306/S00647/new-zealand-waste-policies-stuck-in-the-past.htm

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1306/S00309/environment-commissioner-releases-water-report-update.htm

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1307/S00024/iwc-says-govt-must-act-for-survival-of-mauis-dolphins.htm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10895428

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10904557

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/jul/29/hobbit-new-zealand-lord-of-the-rings-middle-earth-oil-gas-drilling

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/06/us-newzealand-milk-image-idUSBRE97503H20130806

    http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/xinhua/2013-08-05/content_9769307.html

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10910158

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10913041

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/nz-commits-2020-climate-change-target-5534697

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1308/S00273/national-admits-defeat-on-climate-change.htm

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1308/S00257/gutted-emissions-trading-scheme-damaging-forestry.htm

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1308/S00219/public-silenced-on-oil-well-consents.htm

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1308/S00179/rma-changes-risk-further-damage-to-nzs-reputation.htm

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1308/S00177/key-stacks-deck-plays-cute-with-rma.htm

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1308/S00172/government-welcomes-king-salmon-decision.htm

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1308/S00154/minister-must-shoulder-the-blame-for-mpis-mistakes.htm

    http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/planned-oil-exploration-outrages-kaikoura-residents-5535929

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1308/S00287/more-deforestation-following-ets-changes.htm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11115218

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9099326/Nats-plan-to-remove-right-to-oppose-drilling

    http://www.3news.co.nz/Residents-against-proposed-Fonterra-mine/tabid/423/articleID/311296/Default.aspx

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1309/S00100/bills-failure-highlights-nationals-empty-slogan.htm

    http://www.mfe.govt.nz/website/closed-sites/bioethics.html

    http://www.indymedia.org.nz/articles/1255

    Environment Canterbury (
    Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010
    Denies access to the Environment Court for the resolution of environmental and resource
    –
    management matters in the
    Canterbury region

    Environment Canterbury (Temporary Commissioners and Improved Water Management) Act 2010
    Enables the Minister for the Environment to choose what law will or
    will not apply to Commissioners appointed to replace
    the Canterbury regional councillors

    http://www.rethinking.org.nz/assets/Newsletter_PDF/Issue_112/02_United_Nations_Universal_Periodic_Review_170613.pdf

    http://lsa.net.au/wcb-content/uploads/lsa/files/2011/Henry%20VIII%20clauses.pdf

    Henry VIII Clause

    http://www.rethinking.org.nz/assets/Newsletter_PDF/Issue_112/02_United_Nations_Universal_Periodic_Review_170613.pdf

    ^^ law society UN submission

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaru-herald/business/9107225/Rod-Oram-Time-for-economic-leadership

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/9121336/Deep-sea-oil-plans-anger-stars

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/9134466/Ross-Sea-proposed-sanctuary-slashed

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1309/S00064/concerns-over-revised-plan-for-ross-sea-protection.htm

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1309/S00059/serious-risk-in-fed-farmers-short-term-thinking.htm

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/9143526/Environmental-OK-for-holiday-highway

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1309/S00108/analysis-of-proposed-freshwater-rma-sir-geoffrey-palmer.htm

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11122601

    http://www.labour.org.nz/news/why-not-wholly-independent-reporting-minister
    • Bearded Git 20.1

      5 January 2014 at 5:08 pm

      Brilliant summary BLiP.

      The question is how we get all this government’s lies, obfuscation and disingenuous behaviour across to the voting public.
      • BM 20.1.1

        5 January 2014 at 6:39 pm

        I’d say John Key would relish the opportunity to discuss all the points raised in that list.

        Especially during election year, it would be slaughter on a grand scale.
    • mickysavage 20.2

      5 January 2014 at 5:56 pm

      All I can say BLiP is wow!
      • Saarbo 20.2.1

        5 January 2014 at 6:26 pm

        +1…Brilliant.
    • Foreign Waka 20.3

      5 January 2014 at 9:13 pm

      I hope that this contribution is kept in an online library for future references.
21. Matthew Hooton 21

    5 January 2014 at 7:06 pm

    Greg – this is a disappointingly partisan and inaccurate post. No country is doing MORE than NZ with respect to climate change.

    You must have heard, for example, of the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Emissions that NZ launched at Copenhagen. See http://www.globalresearchalliance.org It was in fact the only substantial outcome from that fiasco (and any COP/CMP since). If it leads to methane and nitrous oxide emissions falling by even a few percent, it will do more to reduce global emissions than New Zealand even ceasing to exist. (Interestingly, it was opposed by the warmist-ultras in the NZ bureaucracy because they thought it would take attention from the ETS – they prefer the symbolism of that policy to one that would actually achieve something in a global sense.)

    And even when it comes to the ETS, NZ is a world leader even after the changes National made in its first term to the scheme Labour put in place in its dying days in 2008, having done nothing for the previous eight years. There is no ETS anywhere in the world as comprehensive as the NZ scheme, even after those changes. In the EU, for example (when I last checked a year or so ago) over 70% of its economy is services, for which its ETS is largely irrelevant, 28% is manufacturing and 2% is agriculture. Less than half of the EU’s electricity sources are covered by its scheme and agriculture is completely excluded. There are also exemptions for SMEs.

    In any case, it wouldn’t really matter what kind of ETS we had now, because the global carbon price has collapsed to near to zero.

    So just what is it that you would want NZ to do that it is not doing (and saying you want to reverse National’s ETS changes doesn’t mean anything anymore, given the global carbon price).
    • mickysavage 21.1

      5 January 2014 at 7:19 pm

      Matthew

      The answer is very simple. The world needs to curtail and reduce the production of greenhouse gases. Nothing else really matters. By this measurement New Zealand is performing very poorly, the 6th worst in the developed world. If it was not for a splurge of forest planting in the early 1990s it would be ever worse.

      The ETS scheme is not compressive, the biggest sector (agriculture) is not in it. The incentives for the other sectors are poor, for instance they are entitled to purchase ridiculously cheap credits from overseas.

      I know that the spin of how our ETS scheme is comprehensive is trotted out from time to time but the reality is that it is not comprehensive and it is not working.

      We need a scheme that will incentivise farmers to replant forests on marginal land and persuade people to catch public transport.

      We can insist on the purchase of locally produced carbon credits and at least this will mean that we know that there will be an environmental benefit. And the bottom line is that the greenhouse gas production must reduce. Right now it is trending up at a time when it should be going down.
      • Matthew Hooton 21.1.1

        5 January 2014 at 7:28 pm

        Yes, the policy objective is for the world to curtail and reduce GHG emissions. And with the GRA, no country has done more than NZ to achieve that objective. It is not about our emissions, or the emissions of any country really, but about the global total and each country should surely do what will best contribute to reducing the global total, which is what NZ has done.

        On the ETS, the biggest EU sector, services, is not in it either. Nor is agriculture. There is no ETS that includes a country’s biggest sector nor one that includes agriculture.

        You mention overseas credits – well of course the whole point of ETSs is (or would be, if any existed outside the EU and NZ) to allow international trading based on the global price. It hardly makes sense of each country (especially a small one) to have its own ETS independent from the rest of the world.

        But I agree, of course the ETS isn’t “working” – the global carbon price has collapsed because only countries which have surpluses of ANUs are taking the Kyoto system seriously, so there are sellers but not buyers. That is why Kyoto has failed and can’t be retrieved. Direct scientific interventions (like the GRA) are the way forward not waiting for every for every country in the world to agree to a global system (which will never happen).

        My point remains: your “narrative” that NZ is behind in the world, or not doing anything, is nonsense.
        • rhinocrates 21.1.1.1

          5 January 2014 at 7:36 pm

          And yet just a while ago Hoots was ridiculing “warmists” and now it’s all “lets be reasonable”. Anyone thinking that it doesn’t have political ambitions? Act or Nat – bets anyone?
        • mickysavage 21.1.1.2

          5 January 2014 at 7:46 pm

          My point remains: your “narrative” that NZ is behind in the world, or not doing anything, is nonsense.

          But look at the graph above Matthew. The debate has been unduly complicated but when you boil it down it is actually quite simple. The world needs to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses that it produces and hopefully eventually it will, possible through reforestation or some other means, reduce the amount of CO2, Methane and other gasses in the atmosphere. Everything else is irrelevant.

          New Zealand signed up to Kyoto, under a National Government and through the inspired leadership of Simon Upton, to as a start reduce its level of GHG production to less than that in 1990 by 2050. It appears that we are not going to even get close. From the graph above our net rate of emissions will be three times the 1990 level. This is extra CO2 and methane that will need to be extracted from the atmosphere before we get back to the 1990 levels of emission. And these levels were not utopia. They were an interim target until humanity could work out other methods to extract GHGs from the atmosphere.

          My perhaps simplistic understanding of the world’s ecosystem is that it is able to absorb (say) half of the current production of CO2. Everything else goes into the atmosphere. Therefore as a minimum NZ should actually aim to cut current production by half which is way more than Kyoto required.

          So we are way ahead of where we were in 1990 and the realistic goal should be to actually get to a level where output is half of that level.

          Instead of that we are amongst the worst performing developed nations in terms of CO2 increases.

          I think it is very fair to say that we are behind the rest of the world.
          • rhinocrates 21.1.1.2.1

            5 January 2014 at 7:57 pm

            Hoots is practising being a minister of whatsit, waffling instead of answering – he’s beyond reasoning now – but then as a cut-rate Malcolm Tucker, it always was. What you see now is its extended job interview for a Nat list position.

            However, Mickey, keep playing to the audience – we need to hear it spelled out.
          • Rhinocrates 21.1.1.2.2

            5 January 2014 at 8:14 pm

            Ooh, Hoots the aspiring politico is getting angry: “FFS”!

            Now now, Hoots, you’ve got to appear to be the voice of reason at all times – angry doesn’t look good unless you’ve found a cause you “passionately” support.

            A while ago it was decrying “warmists”: and now it’s trying to muddy the waters. Next it will be saying that it’s always been a feminist.

            (fucking autocorrect!)
        • BM 21.1.1.3

          5 January 2014 at 8:02 pm

          Fascinating.

          I didn’t realize no other country has agriculture included in their ETS.

          I then have to ask why is Labour so keen on having agriculture included in our ETS?, they must know by doing that it would price our exports out of the market.

          Do they not care about NZ, are they so ideologically driven that they don’t see this as an issue.

          Dangerous times ahead for NZ, that’s for sure.
          • RedLogix 21.1.1.3.1

            5 January 2014 at 8:10 pm

            Mainly because NZ is in the peculiar situation of having such large portion of it’s emissions from agriculture.

            Different nations have quite different source profiles – all that really matters in the end is taking responsibility for your bit of it.

            Besides an ETS was always a messy, game-able compromise – a simple old fashioned global carbon tax would be simpler and more effective.
            • Macro 21.1.1.3.1.1

              5 January 2014 at 8:21 pm

              Besides an ETS was always a messy, game-able compromise – a simple old fashioned global carbon tax would be simpler and more effective.

              Exactly cf Canada’s BC
              http://business.financialpost.com/2012/07/05/4-key-reasons-why-bcs-carbon-tax-is-working/
          • mickysavage 21.1.1.3.2

            5 January 2014 at 8:21 pm

            I didn’t realize no other country has agriculture included in their ETS.

            Why is that relevant? If a GHG gets produced then it needs to be dealt with somehow. Why is it relevant that we produce so much methane, unless we want to welch on the international understandings that have been reached and not reduce our output sufficiently.
            • BM 21.1.1.3.2.1

              5 January 2014 at 8:43 pm

              Because we’re a country that relies heavily on exports with the the vast majority being dairy, to hobble the country for just ideological reasons is not just madness, it’s criminal.

              No other country is going to destroy their main export earner, why the fuck should NZ.
              The stupidity, it’s burns something bad.
              • mickysavage …

                5 January 2014 at 9:25 pm

                A functioning ETS will not destroy the main export earner but something that will absolutely decimate the dairy industry is …

                wait for it …

                sustained drum roll …

                Climate change.

                We ignore this at our peril and wanting to do less than other nations will not cut it.

                The stupidity burns particularly brightly here.
                • Matthew Hooton …

                  5 January 2014 at 11:17 pm

                  I am not sure whether or not AGW would decimate our dairy industry. But even if it would then the solution would be to change more to industries suitable for higher temperatures. NZ agriculture has shifted in a generation from lamb and wool towards dairy and dynamic economies always can.

                  And, of course, whatever economic change is needed in NZ as a result of AGW will still be needed regardless of our domestic climate change policies. NZ will warm and the seas will rise just as fast whether or not we have an ETS or any other policy. It all depends on what China, the US, India, Brazil etc do – unless you think the impacts of AGW will be localised depending on what individual countries do: country A stays cool because it has an ETS while country B warms up because it doesn’t!
              • Macro …

                5 January 2014 at 9:30 pm

                Every country could say the same thing… Should we place all our butter in one box? Is there a Global need for our product? (There is a difference between need, and want promoted by advertising). Note that Dairy has not always been our no. 1 export earner. Could we be doing things differently?

                Essentially the world has approximately 500 Giga tonnes of Carbon Emissions left – that might seem like a hell of a lot, but at the 30 Giga tonnes a year as we are currently emitting (and increasing) you can see that that budget is going to run out in about 17 years. It’s probably too late now to keep warming below 2 degrees C (agreed at by the International community in the 1990’s as the level of catastrophic warming.) And it is upon that figure that the budget of 500 giga tonnes of emissions is based.

                These might sound like questions out of left field to you BM – but the sad fact is that we cannot continue with business as usual – not if we are to keep warming below 2 degrees at the very least. Sandy, the horrendous Typhoon last year, etc, the list grows all the time, should be a warning to us all that even a small amount of warming results in disastrous consequences. These extreme weather events are just the start, they will continue. And the consequences of even small sea level rise will be serious for many millions of people. Eco systems are under threat, The largest living organism, the Great Barrier Reef will die, if not by a warming ocean then by ocean acidification. Our very life is dependent upon the Oceans, much of our oxygen is produced by phytoplankton http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Phytoplankton/
                these minute organisms too are under threat from warming ocean and ocean acidification
                http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Phytoplankton/page5.php
                the list goes on and on…

                You need to understand this BM

                Business as usual is NOT an option

                That is why we have to re-examine the way we do things. We have to incentivise all to reduce their carbon footprint, not to do so is theft – theft of our children and children’s children future.
              • JonL …

                6 January 2014 at 6:09 pm

                ” to hobble the country for just ideological reasons is not just madness, it’s criminal.”

                Just like the Nats are doing?
    • Zorr 21.2

      5 January 2014 at 7:28 pm

      I think there is an analogy that is apt here:

      As a heavy-set man, I have been losing weight. It is important to me that I lose this weight as it has a multitude of benefits for my health and general well-being. I promised myself that I would reach a particular goal and I am closing in on it after a couple of years of effort.

      If I had, instead, been putting on weight, am I not failing myself? Why does it matter what Joe is doing with his weight loss if I can’t even get over the start line?

      This is essentially where New Zealand finds itself. We are looking around to criticize everyone else for not doing enough because we have seriously failed ourselves when it comes to reacting to climate change and looking after our own environment. Clean and green used to be something we aspired to – now it’s a label we stick over the evidence to hide it.
      • Matthew Hooton 21.2.1

        5 January 2014 at 7:36 pm

        The analogy makes no sense. In this case, if a flea (NZ) stays or gets fat it doesn’t matter so much, as long as it has helped an elephant (US, China) lose weight (which is the purpose of the GRA).
        • Zorr 21.2.1.1

          5 January 2014 at 7:43 pm

          Are we not setting our own targets? Wasn’t the governments own stated aim to reduce emissions?

          Oh wait, it was!
          http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/reducing-our-emissions/targets.html

          And, where are we?
          http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1312/S00232/govt-report-to-un-projects-massive-increase-in-nz-emissions.htm

          So yeah, we’re failing ourselves. Who cares what the rest of the world does, shouldn’t we be acting morally and attempting to preserve our environment for the use and enjoyment of future generations unilaterally? Since when did we, New Zealand, stop being a global leader that punched above it’s weight?

          At the very least we should stop being hypocritical fucks and just admit that we love our meat and cheese too much to ever possibly change the way we work the land.
          • Matthew Hooton 21.2.1.1.1

            5 January 2014 at 7:47 pm

            Who cares what the rest of the world does???? FFS. That is the ONLY thing that matters. Even ETS advocates argued we were setting up a scheme as an example to the rest of the world. The impact of AGW on NZ is independent from any action we take – what we do domestically only matters in the sense it might encourage China, the US and others to act too.
            • Macro 21.2.1.1.1.1

              5 January 2014 at 7:56 pm

              Well we DID set up a scheme that might have, given a fair chance have worked – but then your masters went and stuffed it up. So as an example to the rest of the world it is simply – to not put too polite a term on it – “crap”.
              • rhinocrates …

                5 January 2014 at 8:03 pm

                Yep, we see Hoots the ashpyrig (aspiring) politico trying to muddy the waters… and it’s actually getting angry ! Multiple question marks and “FFS” Ooh, that’s passionate!

                “Lets do nothing; in fact, lets pollute as much as we can, ‘cos we’re insignificant!”

                Yeah, drill baby, drill!
              • rhinocrates …

                5 January 2014 at 8:09 pm

                Ooh, Hoots the aspiring politico is getting angry! “FFS!” Careful Hoots, if you want to run for office, you have to appear to be the voice of reason at all times! Once you were ranting about those evil ‘warmists” now you’re saying that they’re impractical. You’ve got to keep your narrative clear – we’re not all goldfish with Korsakov’s Syndrome, you know.
            • Zorr 21.2.1.1.1.2

              5 January 2014 at 8:02 pm

              Let me get this straight then:
              You would rather continue to act in a myopically immoral manner because we are insignificant in a global sense when it comes to GHG emissions rather than leading the way? From the way you state it, we shouldn’t be a trailblazer because it involves too much risk, we should just sit back and wait for the “big boys” to make up their minds.

              Fuck that. I want this country to become an international leader again. I want this country to represent something beyond neoliberal capitalism. I want to be able to hold my head up high once again and say “I am a NZer” and have that mean something more than embarrassing PM antics.

              At the end, that’s what it comes down to. Not what other country’s want us to be but what we want to be, for ourselves. Shouldn’t we desire to act morally? It is looking more and more like I may still be around for when my children ask “why didn’t you do more when you had a chance?” and I hope to be able to answer that I did as much as I could – no matter what anyone else chooses to do.

              If you’re still around, what do you hope your answer will be?
              • Matthew Hooton …

                5 January 2014 at 11:05 pm

                But we are leading the way with the GRA. NZ is the world leader in ag sci so it makes sense that that is the area in which we can make the biggest contribution to reducing global emissions. The GRA is the only such initiative that is designed to reduce global emissions, which is why NZ is the world leader.
                • Zorr …

                  5 January 2014 at 11:53 pm

                  The GRA is a nice fig leaf for National’s failures as a curator for New Zealand’s environment. If it ever provides any quantifiable results, feel free to let me know. For now, though, the facts speak for themselves.

                  * Our emissions are up 160% over 1990 levels and 47% above 2011 levels.
                  * Land use intensification is happening across the country, especially in Canterbury where the plains are being transformed to dairy use despite the huge toll it is taking on the local ecosystems there.
                  * No matter how many advances are made in reducing average emissions, as long as we continue the process of intensification any gains made will be swallowed up by the increased numbers.

                  We need to move away from this unsustainable model of land use to a more sustainable one that can allow us to move away from this vicious cycle that is condemning our future generations.

                  As I asked before, when we look back on these days, do you really want your answer to be “well… we had the GRA…”?
            • enjoy every sandwich 21.2.1.1.1.3

              5 January 2014 at 8:05 pm

              what we do domestically only matters in the sense it might encourage China, the US and others to act too.

              You mean like we did with our anti-nuclear stance? *snort*
    • Macro 21.3

      5 January 2014 at 7:37 pm

      Exhibit 1
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10850322

      Exhibit 2
      http://beehive.govt.nz/release/ets-amendment-bill-passes-third-reading

      The effect of this Bill was to indefinitely exclude agriculture from the ETS

      Exhibit 3
      http://beehive.govt.nz/release/new-zealand-commits-un-framework-convention
      The effect of this announcement was to say that NZ would not sign up for a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol of binding greenhouse gas reductions.

      Exhibit 4
      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10818922
      Here Mr Groser says he

      does not want the New Zealand price for emissions units to be “dislodged” from the international price.

      Well that wouldn’t be lowest-cost, would it?

      I could go on almost ad infinitum Matthew
      To say

      No country is doing MORE than NZ with respect to climate change.

      is simply laughable.
      • Matthew Hooton 21.3.1

        5 January 2014 at 7:42 pm

        Which country is doing more to reduce global emissions?

        (What does Kyoto have to do with anything. It is dead and never covered China, the US and the other major emitters anyway.)

        (And what is wrong with not dislodging from the international price?)
        • Macro 21.3.1.1

          5 January 2014 at 8:00 pm

          Denmark for a start.. see my comment here
          http://thestandard.org.nz/new-zealand-is-doing-nothing-about-climate-change/#comment-753781
          • Macro 21.3.1.1.1

            5 January 2014 at 8:06 pm

            As for not dislodging from the international price – which Mr Groser has now reneged on by the way:
            http://beehive.govt.nz/release/restrictions-proposed-ets-units
            – do keep up – the effect was to import rubbish credits at ridiculous prices to the effect that a cup of coffee cost more than a tonne of carbon thereby negating the effect of the scheme.
            Groser’s belated restrictions had the effect of shutting the stable door after the horse had bolted.
    • Flip 21.4

      6 January 2014 at 8:26 am

      The ETS is a failure. It is a neo-liberal solution using a market mechanism. Trading in negatives like waste (CO2 production) is a fail. It leads to all sorts of distortion and fails to address the problem. It just moves the problem around.

      I would suggest a better solution would be to tax waste. Waste in production, waste in usage and waste in disposal. It is not a tradeable commodity. The tax would be used to recycle and reuse waste if possible or for future generation to provide for the loss of the resource.
22. tricledrown 22

    6 January 2014 at 12:22 am

    Methane Hooter
    As it is dairying costs are rising rapidly.
    Transport costs fuel costs
    Fertilizer and other chemical ie weed spray.
    By reducing reliance on fossil fuels on farm it will make dairying more profitable.
    By making added value products from milk will reduce the number of cows required.
    Dairying is on the top of the cycle Now but as with all farming it is very cyclical.
    When the hits the fan what’s plan B .
    As per usual Master Hoodwinker
    You have none.
    Slowly bringing in an ETS for farming will make it more sustainable in the long run.
    Dairyfarming is getting away with massive enviromental degradation which will backfire on them sooner or later.
    Water quality is just as important to farmers as everyone else.
    But letting farmers pollute water tables is going to backfire diseases like cryptosporidiam are becoming widespread and endemic .
    Shorterm thinking again
    No wonder they support National the party of short yerm thinking.
23. dave 23

    6 January 2014 at 8:43 am

    national has no plan beyond asset sales cronyism and looting the tax payer why would they have a workable plan on climate change????????
24. captain hook 24

    6 January 2014 at 10:42 am

    The thing to remember is that none of the Tories or their myrmidons like hooton care a whit about it anyway.
    They just want to get it while they can and to hell with anything else.
    like their exploitation of the workers they exploit the earth and dont give a damn.
25. Natwest 25

    6 January 2014 at 12:38 pm

    “Climate Change” – what happened to “Global Warming” – Oh yes! that’s right, that theory has been exposed for the lie it was – just ask those fruit loop idiots stuck in ice at the Antartic.

    So, now we have the doom and gloom of “Climate Change” – the end is nigh, the planet is doomed.

    Can someone please explain the issue here – given we have historical data, which tells us the planet has undergone immense climate change over the billions of years of its existence.

    Climate will always change – that is the nature of the planets evolution.

    The Socialist Carbon Taxe introduced by various countries around the world, don’t appear to be having any impact on this phenomina – and guess what, it won’t.
    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 25.1

      6 January 2014 at 12:50 pm

      Nothing to worry about then. Makes you wonder what Munich Re are on about, doesn’t it? I expect their insurance claims data are all wrong. Or are they lying too?

      Come to think of it, what was the timescale of previous climate change, Natwest?

      Oh, oops, hypocrite trash, it’s you who’s lying, isn’t it? Yes, yes, it is.

      The question is, as usual, are you dupe or duplicitous? Which is it?
      • Macro 25.1.1

        6 January 2014 at 1:38 pm

        duplicitous dupe?? 🙂

        Really OAK these idiots are best ignored – they have nothing to offer and only repeat well debunked trash ad nauseum..
      • Macro 25.1.2

        7 January 2014 at 10:01 pm

        Not that I advocate violence but ….
        http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2014/01/polar-vortex-causes-hundreds-of-injuries-as-people-making-snide-remarks-about-climate-change-are-pun.html
        😉
26. Macro 26

    7 January 2014 at 9:14 pm

    2nd Hottest Year in the long term record (since 1870) for the NZ region.

    http://hot-topic.co.nz/its-hot-down-here-2013-was-the-new-zealand-regions-2nd-warmest-year/

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS