oh fuck

Written By: - Date published: 1:53 pm, October 27th, 2017 - 98 comments
Categories: global warming, science - Tags: , ,

Surface air and sea temperatures of today’s global warming are typically compared to past global temperatures, and the comparison is then used to judge how severe current warming is. The commonly held view is that 100 million years ago, the world’s oceans were about 15 degrees C warmer than they are today. That figure has been produced by looking at a particular oxygen isotope present in fossils and extrapolating from the abundance of that isotope to arrive at an estimate for past temperatures. So far, so good.

Except it’s not.

Very recent research has demonstrated that the proxy for temperature (the oxygen isotope in fossils) varies over time and so can’t be used as a straight forward indicator of temperature after all. In other words, the temperature estimates for deep time that have been calculated from the presence of a particular oxygen isotope in fossils are too high.

As The Independent reports,

The scientists behind the study claim that the apparent cooling of the oceans was actually just the effect of the process they’ve seen. The changes in the amount of oxygen in the shells isn’t a reflection of changing temperatures – just a consequence of the fact that the amount of oxygen seen changes over time anyway.

Is that a big deal? Well yes it is. Here’s a chart for global temperature going back 500 million years. (Link to full size here)

The temperatures given in panels one two and three all rely on the supposedly “stable oxygen isotope measurements from the shells of macroscopic marine organisms” – ie, the “stable oxygen isotope” that isn’t stable at all. (Scroll down to “Data” through the link)

No-one knows how much of a ‘bump’ has been given to temperature estimates because of the assumption that the oxygen isotope was stable. But there has most definitely been a bump and the estimates are wrong.

Look. I’m no scientist, and I’m aware that by recalibrating and recalculating from existing samples and data (if that can be done) that more accurate temperature estimates might be produced. So not being scientific at all about this, but the more or less steady drop in temperatures through panels 2 and 3 of that graph  (Panel 1 doesn’t estimate global temp) would suggest to me the possibility that the ‘bump’ amounts to most, if not all, of the heightened temperature of the deep past.

So look at the far right hand axis of the graph where current warming is plotted. Then come back along to 1 million years ago where the panel includes temperature estimates extrapolated from ice core samples (hydrogen isotopes) that, being polar samples, were manipulated to yield a global temperature estimate. And perhaps quite reasonably entertain the idea of that data having been manipulated so that the results aligned with the accepted and “known” temperature estimates arrived at via that stable oxygen isotope in fossils…

Go back to 7, 70 and 500 million years ago with all the bags of salt you can drag along with you – because those estimates are wrong and probably increasingly so the further back through time we go.

Yesterday” we could have said that current global temperatures are at levels unknown in the past 4 or 5 million years. And bad as that was, we can’t even say that today. Today we need to look further back in time, but don’t have any reliable estimates that might help us determine at what point in the deep past the world was this warm.

So where to from here?

Well, we know the perspective of politicians and policy makers. They’re happy enough to keep us mainlining on fossil for now because it’s good for the economy. And we know they’re contentedly throwing all our eggs into what might be described as the  ‘economy preservation jars’ labelled “trade”, “tax” and “tech magic”.

Now, are you happy about that? Because I’m not happy about that.

It’s essentially ‘madness in a jar’ sitting against the knowledge that the changes coming with AGW are going to be as sledgehammer blows. Sanity might dictate we switch off fossil today (all of it and without exception) – cop the fallout – and urgently cast around for avenues that might allow us to escape further consequences of our current fossil dependent socio/economic set-up.

The unfortunate catch is, that much as you or I might feel compelled to act, this socio/economic system has us shackled – we can’t move. Maybe it could be likened to being stuck on the Titanic with the knowledge that if the captain had headed straight for the ice-berg instead of trying to avoid it, then the ship wouldn’t be about to go down. The answer then, is simple enough, but seemingly impossible to action.

So what’s the solution?

98 comments on “oh fuck”

  1. boggis the cat 1

    So what’s the solution?

    To let the specialists determine the importance of the errors in estimates for the deep past. You and I don’t have the expertise.

    Having said that: It is much more important to look at the data from the recent epoch, as we understand that situation better. Constraining the period, the rise and fall of atmospheric CO2 is synchronised to climate variation, so the effect of dumping huge quantities into the atmosphere can be estimated reasonably well.

    Big changes to estimates in the world of hundreds of millions of years past aren’t going to have any impact on the predictions for present-day climate change. Yes, it is a possible concern that a hothouse planet may have required less CO2, but there are simply too many unknowns to assess this.

    • Bill 1.1

      That a deliberate attempt at a derail? The question posed obviously wasn’t anything to do with the data or estimates.

      Meanwhile, those past temp estimates are used to “second guess” likely impacts of given temps (eg likely loss of polar ice, sea levels , general impacts on flora and fauna etc etc). And since they are too high, our “second guesses” are obviously far too conservative.

      edit – not to mention the whole spurious nonsense that would proclaim “the world’s been hotter than this before and everything was fine. So, no worries”

      • boggis the cat 1.1.1

        Meanwhile, those past temp estimates are used to “second guess” likely impacts of given temps […]

        They aren’t using data from millions of years ago for those estimates.

        And since they are too high, our “second guesses” are obviously far too conservative.

        No. It isn’t important.

        The present epoch is a series of glacial and interglacial cycles, due to the Milankovitch cycles and the present configuration of continents. This is a relatively stable process (major periods of volcanism and some other factors also cause changes). To estimate impact from human induced CO2 increase they look at the data from these more equivalent situations, over the past cycles going back a few hundred thousand years. More recent history is a better predictor and the data is qualitatively better and quantitatively more abundant.

        Getting excited about errors in estimates from millions of years back is foolish — what matters is the work on more recent climate, back to a few tens of thousands of years.

        edit – not to mention the whole spurious nonsense that would proclaim “the world’s been hotter than this before and everything was fine. So, no worries”

        Everything was fine for the life that had evolved for that range of climate, and mix of atmospheric gases, sure.

        We live in the present epoch, and life now has evolved to suit the present inter-glacial climate. We know that pushing the planet out of the inter-glacial is a bad move, and anyone arguing otherwise hasn’t bothered to think about this at all. There is no point arguing with those people, just ignore them and move on.

        • Bill 1.1.1.1

          Some climate scientists are talking with paleontologists who are dealing in millions of years to get a handle on things (eg “this” temperature setting accords with what? in the deep past).

          Now if the paleontological record is wrong in terms of temperature, and the environment that accompanied that temperature actually unfolds at lower temperatures (as would seem to be the case), then that has significant implications for any current measures around adaptation.

        • cleangreen 1.1.1.2

          boggis the cat

          Do you work for one or more of these?
          THE PETROLEUM
          CHEMICAL
          TRUCKING INDUSTRIES
          Or are you just employed to offer the other side of the “climate change debate”?

          Firstly it is just as important to know where you yourself are coming from here.

          • Andre 1.1.1.2.1

            cleangreen, you really need help with your reading comprehension skills if you think boggis is shilling for any of those industries or putting out climate change denialism.

            • lurgee 1.1.1.2.1.1

              cleangreen has a history of assuming anyone who disagees with him/her is shilling for the enemy.

              I’m a National voter, in cleangreen’s funny little wonderland.

          • boggis the cat 1.1.1.2.2

            If you can’t understand what I am posting then try looking into it.

            Lack of any real understanding of these issues, and the basic science, is a problem. Those wanting to ignore AGW use examples of ignorant commentary to paint the scientific consensus as ‘scaremongering’. The corporations trying to squeeze the last few dollars of profits from wrecking the climate are benefitting from your lack of comprehension.

      • lprent 1.1.2

        He is actually right.

        Having said that: It is much more important to look at the data from the recent epoch, as we understand that situation better.

        While there could be future biological and ecological stress implications to do with temperature levels in the deep past, along with the effects of different O2, CO2, insolation etc levels it isn’t that interesting to humans or for most species today.

        We depend heavily on our agricultural based civilization, something that is only a few 10k years old. That is what allows us to support such a vast population, and which is enormously susceptible to climatic change. That is because there essentially hasn’t been any real change in the last 10k years and our farming and engineering systems have a very limited range of chaos and variation built in.

        The measurements you’d looking at with buried shells are primarily used for >100k years where we don’t have good ice cores. And where we don’t have other good proxy methods, ie > ~1mya.

        • boggis the cat 1.1.2.1

          I think that what Bill is concerned about is predicting how the climate would restabilise at a much higher CO2 concentration. The problem is that we simply don’t have an equivalent (or even nearly so) period in the distant past.

          We also forget that life copes fine with big swings over thousands of years*, and teasing out that type of temporal resolution from millions of years back is not really feasible.

          (My brother did his Geology Masters by looking at shellfish speciation. He ended up collapsing a whole family of ‘species’ down to one, with local environmental adaptations over a long period of time. Prior researchers had found, for example, small animals in one geographical area or layer, and assumed that these were different to larger animals in a different area or layer. Life adapts to changes in conditions, and one long-lived species confused many past researchers with its adaptability.)

          [* Not decades, however. AGW is too fast for many species to cope with. Ants and beetles are doing fine; corals and amphibians, not so much.]

          • Bill 1.1.2.1.1

            Nope. Not really interested in any “restabilisation”. I thought my concern was pretty clearly laid out in the final two paras of the post.

            Maybe the point you should take from the post is that we’ve pushed things much, much further than we thought, and that any talk now of banning cars by 2030 or of achieving net zero emissions by 2050 or any of the other clap-trap spouted by politicians of all colours and hues as well as policy makers, might amount to naught more than a rather strange suicide note in the scheme of things.

            We know what to do if we’re to have a shit show. We know we have to stop burning fossil immediately. And every policy and government target seems to be predicated on not doing what we need to do.

            So to reiterate my concern. How do we affect action when we’re hog-tied by institutional idiocy, cultural inertia and presided over by unimaginative idiots?

            edit. As for “life copes fine with big swings over thousands of years”, maybe try some Peter Ward on that front. (What with the Great Extinctions and their cause being his speciality)

            • boggis the cat 1.1.2.1.1.1

              Most of the great extinction events took hundreds of thousands of years. AGW is somewhat slower than meteorite impact, but faster than most other events (f.e. the Deccan Traps).

              Remember that the glacial / inter-glacial swings that are the geologically recent norm take ten to twenty thousand years. Our activity is somewhat akin to a de-glaciation event compressed into a couple of hundred years (with the bulk of the damage done post-1950).

              The problem is that we, as a species, are not very good at understanding threats that are not imminent and easily visible. AGW isn’t a tiger or snake, so we’re crap at recognising the danger. Scientists are doing their job, but the rich old white men (a few of whom aren’t white, or men, but it’s a reasonable generalisation) don’t care too much about something that may happen after they’re dead — unless it involves increasing their dragon hoard, in which case their mortality eludes comprehension.

              My view is that the way to solve the issue is to point out how much money Elon Musk is making, and how much the fossil-fuel companies are losing in profit margin. It is far harder to squeeze oil and gas out of rock, or bake it out of tar-sand, than poking a hole in the ground and having it conveniently fountain out. This is a sunset industry, regardless of AGW. Push it off its perch by removing subsidies and tax breaks — that much is easy to get done as people understand giving away money to corporations.

              Keep on rolling out renewable energy and the cost starts to become too low for fossil-fuels to compete with. The cheapest energy source in the UK is now off-shore wind farms — not oil, gas, coal, or nuclear. There is still profit in building these, so they’re continuing to get built. Prices get squeezed down, as energy demand is tempered by improved efficiency of use.

              • Bill

                Push it off its perch by removing subsidies and tax breaks — that much is easy to get done as people understand giving away money to corporations.

                I’ve done previous posts on diverting fossil subsidies as an integral part of a scheme that would crash end use with minimal impact. (NZ annual subsidy to fossil is in the billions according to IMF figures)

                Rolling out renewables is all well and good and should be done. But we simply lack the time now (for anything under 2 degrees C) to replace fossil with renewables. So consumption has to dive. (And all the talk of renewables “taking off” casually ignores the ridiculously low base the rise is coming from, and the fact that current increases in gas dwarf those in renewables).

                Extinctions. The rise in atmospheric CO2 from basilic lava flows took however many thousands of years causing whatever mayhem in terms of sea level rise and what-not in the process. But when things tipped over to become mass extinction (it seems) it was pretty damned rapid (hydrogen sulfide being the culprit apparently). So…given that the previous extinction events have been accompanied by atmospheric CO2 levels to the north of 1000ppm, and seeing as how we are getting up to half way there at a fair clip and stumbling around in a ‘room full’ of tipping points that could flip AGW into run-away GW…..

                • boggis the cat

                  Rolling out renewables is all well and good and should be done. But we simply lack the time now (for anything under 2 degrees C) to replace fossil with renewables. So consumption has to dive. (And all the talk of renewables “taking off” casually ignores the ridiculously low base the rise is coming from, and the fact that current increases in gas dwarf those in renewables).

                  Well, no. That isn’t the case at all.

                  “The world added enough renewable energy capacity to power every house in the UK, Germany, France and Italy combined last year, according to a new report. The record figure of 161 gigawatts cost about £187bn, but this was a staggering 23 per cent cheaper than it would have cost in the previous year.

                  And, in a further sign of the tumbling price of low-carbon electricity, Denmark, Egypt, India, Mexico, Peru and the United Arab Emirates are all now receiving supplies at less than five US cents (about 4p) per kilowatt-hour, “well below” fossil fuels and nuclear.”

                  Source: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/world-renewable-energy-production-record-increase-2016-green-power-western-europe-half-ren21-a7776646.html

                  The situation is bad, but a tipping point has been reached in terms of the arguments for fossil-fuel as an energy source: it is now more expensive, even with huge subsidies. It is entirely possible to replace fossil-fuels rapidly, and there are options to plant trees in desertified areas to help haul CO2 back out of the atmosphere.

                  Some more potential good news: the areas of the world with the greatest issues of poverty tend to have a lot of potential for renewable energy projects. Coal or oil fired power plants were simply too expensive to be viable, but solar panels and wind turbines are far cheaper and easier to maintain.

                  You aren’t aware of the whole picture. There is no longer an argument about climate change or AGW. Those still believing there is are simply out of touch with reality, and can be safely ignored along with the flat earthers and Apollo landing conspiracy nutters. (But definitely keep pushing for the fastest possible shift to renewable energy — every tonne of CO2 kept out of the atmosphere helps.)

                  • Bill

                    Every house in x, y and z sounds quite impressive until you factor in the percentage of energy used by houses in relation to total energy use across those areas/regions/countries.

                    I think I’m correct in saying that only about 20% of energy is used in the form of electricity ( I really need to develop a better filing system of this pooter!)

                    So houses are only going to account for a proportion of 20%. Think street lights, electric trains, industry etc, etc and, well, I don’t know what that leaves in terms of households, but I think the point’s there.

                    You say it’s now possible to replace fossil fuels rapidly, but think about the logistics beyond he economics for a sec.
                    If only 20% of our energy is used in the form of electricity, then that suggests a 4 fold increase in electricity generation with all conversion away from existing fossil power stations, and the expanded grids and what not that goes with it. And that’s assuming no increase in energy use.

                    How quickly do you think that can be laid in? I’m thinking decades at best.

                    That quote provided by you above states a figure of 161 gigawats of added renewable capacity – which is 16% of 1 Twh in a world that uses somewhere in the region of 140 000 – 150 000 Twh of energy per year.

                    And can I just point out how misleading statements like the following are? In the article you linked to, there was this upbeat snippet –

                    In total, more renewable capacity was added that the total extra capacity from all fossil fuels combined.

                    And that sounds great. But the extra capacity is the “more then off-set” increase in gas that replaced a marked decrease in coal.

                    • boggis the cat

                      That quote provided by you above states a figure of 161 gigawats of added renewable capacity – which is 16% of 1 Twh in a world that uses somewhere in the region of 140 000 – 150 000 Twh of energy per year.

                      You have confused GW and GWh. That 161 GW is the (presumably) maximum potential output. If that were producing at, say, a ten percent efficiency, then you get 161 x 0.1 x 2087 GWh produced annually: about 34 TWh. If it were fifty percent efficient, then it would be about 170 TWh.

                      Yes, that doesn’t immediately solve the problem of replacing 150 000 TWh of energy use, but it is displacing the oldest and least efficient fossil-fuel burning plants. Provided that rate keeps climbing then you are looking at a complete replacement well before 2050.

                      Combine this renewable expansion and displacement with improvements in other areas, such as energy efficiency for buildings, and all of the movement is in the correct direction at an increasing rate.

                      Nobody really knows whether this is going to be enough, or whether there is going to be a ‘tripping point’ where a catastrophic change occurs that is beyond human capacity to address. But it’s not nothing. The metaphorical ball is rolling, so any of your effort added to it will accelerate it now.

          • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2.1.2

            We also forget that life copes fine with big swings over thousands of years*

            Ah, no it doesn’t.

            • boggis the cat 1.1.2.1.2.1

              Yes, it does. The glacial and interglacial periods of the recent epoch have not caused serious disruption to species diversity.

              The problem now is the rate of change is too fast for a lot of animals and plants to adapt to. Corals can’t find new habitat and establish themselves within a few decades, and it appears that a lot of amphibians are going to go extinct due to lack of potential new habitat. (Perhaps the more mobile animals could cope, if humans weren’t monopolising vast tracts of the land for our own purposes. We have fenced in a lot of species that we are now trying to conserve.)

              • lprent

                That was where there were local events happening over reasonable lengths of time (thousands of years).

                For instance glaciations / interglacials are pretty slow and very localised. They mainly affect continental areas in high latitudes or equatorial regions. Temperate regions and islands get affected a lot less because they move their boundaries.

                Sealevel rise or falls just affect coasts and the mountains (the latter is obvious if you think about air pressures with a 75M rise in sealevel after a polar melt).

                As most species (even plants) can move over time, they simply changed their ranges.

                The type of events that Draco was referring to were relatively rapid global events, usually caused directly or indirectly by either magma plumes or comets/asteroids. They are the ones that cause recent (ie < 1bya) mass extinctions because they are either catastrophic or more likely because they landed on a biosphere that was already stretched - like the continental drift causing equatorial super continents or drifting large continents into full polar locations.

                • boggis the cat

                  Yes, I agree with this. It is human decisions that are causing species extinctions right now, such as restricting the ability for animals to shift to new habitat (typically because we’ve penned them into tiny remnant fragments, leaving them nowhere to go).

                  My point is that life can cope with slow changes, so if AGW were a ‘business as usual’ rate of climate change it wouldn’t be as big an issue. But it is a catastrophically fast rate, so we have to do something about it. (Or suffer the consequences, which would possibly include our own extinction.)

              • The Permian Extinction was a series of events that lasted for quarter of a million years and, at the end of it, had wiped out 97% of life on Earth. Indications are that it had a lot of global warming in it.

        • Bill 1.1.2.2

          The problem (in relation to AGW) isn’t being an agricultural based civilisation, but the absolute reliance on fossil fuel for energy that underpins agriculture as well as industrialisation.

          I’d have thought dropping O2 levels in the deep ocean being caused by the loss of the oceanic temperature gradient between the poles and the tropics would be of immense (at least academic) interest. I mean, our burning of fossil is already occasioning the loss of that same polar/tropic temperature gradient in the atmosphere, which is causing the jet stream in the northern hemisphere to meander with ‘unpleasant’ consequences.

          But hey…

          • boggis the cat 1.1.2.2.1

            We also use fossil fuels as direct agricultural inputs, in terms of nitrates and such. Plastics and many chemicals are derived from these sources.

            Burning fossil fuels is the stupidest use of the resource. It is the same mistake people made when they burnt forests. We’re too fond of setting stuff on fire.

          • lprent 1.1.2.2.2

            The problem (in relation to AGW) isn’t being an agricultural based civilisation, but the absolute reliance on fossil fuel for energy that underpins agriculture as well as industrialisation.

            Nope. Try a thought experiment. Assume that they changed to started a change to renewable electricity and electric transportation back in the 70s.

            Over the next century or two exactly the same problems remain of how to grow food because there was already so much added CO2 added by 1980 that the consequences were going to give the planet the immense short-term (ie mostly over the next thousand years) shift in climate patterns sufficient to cause more chaotic weather than we have had for the last 10 thousand years.

            Remember that almost all of the CO2 (and heat) got locked into ocean waters after a brief period in the atmosphere. Those gases still have to come out of the water (and return to it) many times before they get sequestered in sediments. What we have in the atmosphere right now is largely just the last fraction of the burnt fossil carbon.

            Each time the CO2 get back into the atmosphere, they will generate more heat to be stored in the oceans – gradually warming the oceans – which causes the weather shifts.

            The increase in greenhouse gases generated since 1980 will just accentuate and extend the pattern. But there was sufficient in the water by 1980 to cause a climate shift sufficient to push the oceans at lease a degree C and probably several degrees warmer over the next few centuries.

            Shifting to a non greenhouse gas economy now will just give a breathing space and limit the short-term effects this century.

            I mean, our burning of fossil is already occasioning the loss of that same polar/tropic temperature gradient in the atmosphere, which is causing the jet stream in the northern hemisphere to meander with ‘unpleasant’ consequences.

            Which causes nasty reasonably unpredictable weather in one of the larger food bowl regions of the world. The biggest effects of which is on agriculture production and aircraft. The latter just causes transportation problems. The former causes immense changes in how we make, transport and above all store food for an increased frequency of ‘poor’ seasons.

            The level that our high productivity agriculture patterns are dependent on a pretty settled weather pattern is afr more dangerous than the agricultural dependency on alternate methods of mechanisation.

            I’d have thought dropping O2 levels in the deep ocean being caused by the loss of the oceanic temperature gradient between the poles and the tropics would be of immense (at least academic) interest.

            It is. But it is hardly immediate (ie < 1ky). That would require a substantive melt followed by a period of stabilisation to happen to turn off the salinity gradients that help power the N/S currents (or some continental drift in the right places).

            • Bill 1.1.2.2.2.1

              I agree with most of that.

              The commonly accepted view is that we could have avoided 2 degrees of warming if we’d shifted away from fossil well, by now. Even then, other problems such as resource limits would still have been biting at us though. (And possibly agriculture would have been severely hit with whatever warming was already locked in)

              The fragility of agriculture is about to be a huge problem for how we’ve organised ourselves, but it isn’t agriculture that’s driving global warming – that’s almost all down to us sourcing energy from fossil.

              Are we simply talking at cross purposes here?

          • Robert Guyton 1.1.2.2.3

            “The problem (in relation to AGW) isn’t being an agricultural based civilisation”
            I beg to differ, Bill; our “absolute reliance on fossil fuel for energy” is directly due to our having adopted the agricultural way. Cities are a result of choosing agriculture. Wheeled transport, the whole kit and caboodle, is the result of adopting agriculture as our “way”.

            • Bill 1.1.2.2.3.1

              Coal wasn’t dug up and burned because of agriculture. Oil wasn’t promoted as the fuel of choice because of agriculture. Enclosure and the creation of huge (largely squalid) cities didn’t happen because of agriculture.

              The above happened because of industrialisation. Industrialisation (including industrial agriculture) was a product of emergent liberal capitalism.

              • weka

                One could argue that industrialisation and capitalism were natural evolutions from agriculture.

                Coal and oil were always going to be used once there was enough population pressure and the need to colonise met the advent of technology. That’s essentially what the shift from horticultural and gather/hunt societies meant. When you start growing crops (not gardens) a number of things happen. One is that population increases. Another is that you have to have settlements to manage those crops, and now you need to protect those settlements.

                Because the population is growing you need to expand your territory, so now you have war and colonisation. This leads to the rise of the patriarchy and a move from egalitarian organisation to entrenched hierarchies.

                Capitalism and the industrial revolution are end points of that process.

                • And imo you need coal and oil to be able to better distibute food/product created through agriculture (into industrial agriculture) and because of population growth.

                  • weka

                    good point. Where population is increasing there will be a drive to innovate tech around those needs, and that will affect natural resource use.

                    As opposed to non-ag societies that developed social structures to a much larger degree.

                  • Bill

                    Did either China or India, heavily populated with a huge amount of agriculture, turn to coal or oil for the sake of distribution, and did their populations starve as a result?

                    The answer is ‘no’ in both cases. (And as said in response to Weka, Indians knew all about coal but chose not to utilise it)

                    The same can be said for Egypt (that persisted for 3 or 4 thousand years?) or any damned number of civilisations that existed and flourished before capitalism and industrialisation.

                    • The west did and China and India do now so it is a spectrum, over time with other variables added as well, rather than either or situation imo.

                    • Indians knew all about coal but chose not to utilise it

                      [Citation Needed]

                    • Bill

                      Yeah. But in terms of inevitability….?

                      Because if you’re going to argue that it was (Weka’s terminology) “natural” or “inevitable” or any other such like, then there is nothing at all to say about anything around AGW.

                      If fossil use is an inevitable outcome of agriculture, then presumably agriculture and it’s precise configuration was itself an inevitable outcome of something else (in all inhabited continents bar Australia) …and so AGW and all that comes with it (as well as ever other human construct and it’s consequences) is just ‘destiny’ or some such.

                    • Fossil fuel use facilitated distribution as it gave energy at vastly greater rates. Horse verses car. Steam verses sail as crude examples.

                      It could be argued that it’s a cat and its tail situation for sure. Many interrelated aspects occur. For instance colonisation capitalism and Christianity all supported each other and their goals were aligned – they propped each other up and the same is true for this imo.

                    • weka

                      Egypt used slavery and eventually chose capitalism. Not sure how that invalidates the agricultural theory.

                      Likewise, China now uses coal.

                    • weka

                      Yeah. But in terms of inevitability….?

                      Because if you’re going to argue that it was (Weka’s terminology) “natural” or “inevitable” or any other such like, then there is nothing at all to say about anything around AGW.

                      If fossil use is an inevitable outcome of agriculture, then presumably agriculture and it’s precise configuration was itself an inevitable outcome of something else (in all inhabited continents bar Australia) …and so AGW and all that comes with it (as well as ever other human construct and it’s consequences) is just ‘destiny’ or some such.

                      I didn’t use the word inevitable, and I don’t see evolution in that way, certainly not as destiny. Obviously as you point out there have been cultures that didn’t use coal or capitalism for a long time. But once those techs were available they were adopted pretty quickly, because the pressures of population and land use will utilise expediency.

                      Is it possible for humans to choose differently? Sure. But the basic dynamic that I’ve described about what agriculture means has been consistent across the whole planet. I don’t know that much about India in the context, but I’m going to guess that spiritual and cultural differences (and I’m going to guess geographical and climate) meant that they made difference choices in response to the issues of agriculture increasing population. Belief in reincarnation seems a critical part of those cultures and so dying has a different cultural meaning and import.

                      As for agriculture, it’s not the growing of crops or fencing of herds that defines the argument here, it’s that the transition from pre-ag to ag coincided with big increases in population. That’s historical fact that’s also explainable biologically (more stable food source leads to increase in fertility and thus population growth). The pressures from that have to be handled or responded to somehow, and different cultures have managed that in different ways, but there has been a lot of study on the core differences between pre-ag and ag societies. I summarised those above. It’s cropping that lead to capitalism, it’s the development of hierarchy that stemmed form population growth at that time and place in history.

                    • Bill

                      Egypt “chose” capitalism did it? Not colonised then. No resistance to the socio/econoic ideas of capitalism. Just a choice that was made. Hmm.

                      You’re argument that “industrialisation and capitalism were natural evolutions from agriculture”runs very much against that idea of choice too and isn’t related to any theory I’ve ever come across, and as I’ve said in the un-numbered comment below, is an argument built around/based on fatalism.

                      late edit. The population of agricultural societies are somewhat bound by crop yields that are dependent on weather, whereas pastural populations can just shift their herds (or shift with them) and breed more animals to support a growing population. In other words, there are more compelling reasons for an agricultural society to ‘keep an eye’ on population levels than is the case for a pastoral one.

                    • weka

                      “Egypt “chose” capitalism did it? Not colonised then. No resistance to the socio/econoic ideas of capitalism. Just a choice that was made. Hmm.”

                      Well in that case, no-one chose capitalism, everyone was colonised.

                      “You’re argument that “industrialisation and capitalism were natural evolutions from agriculture”runs very much against that idea of choice too and isn’t related to any theory I’ve ever come across, and as I’ve said in the un-numbered comment below, is an argument built around/based on fatalism.”

                      I’ve already said that my argument isn’t based in fatalism. If you want to understand what it is, I’ll keep talking, if you want to argue with someone about evolution being fatalistic you’ll have to find someone else.

                      late edit. The population of agricultural societies are somewhat bound by crop yields that are dependent on weather, whereas pastural populations can just shift their herds (or shift with them) and breed more animals to support a growing population. In other words, there are more compelling reasons for an agricultural society to ‘keep an eye’ on population levels than is the case for a pastoral one.

                      Not sure what you are trying to say there. Pastoralists still have issues of overshoot and needing to use other people’s land.

                      What do you mean by ‘keep an eye on’? Are you suggesting that those cultures didn’t keep expanding? Well documented history tells us otherwise.

                    • Bill

                      So “natural” in your comment doesn’t preclude choice and “evolution” doesn’t imply mere constrained adaptation.

                      Okay.

                    • weka

                      For the third time, I wasn’t arguing inevitability or destiny set in stone. Up to you if you want to engage with the ideas or argue semantics.

                      edit, though it’s hard to understand why I need to point this out, humans because of their specific kind of consciousness obviously have choice within the evolutionary process.

                • Bill

                  There’s nothing “natural” or “evolutionary” about capitalism or industrialisation. They were deliberate constructs that were forced on people against their will. (Think enclosures and colonisation)

                  And India was a heavily populated country with extensive agriculture that had easy and ready access to coal. But coal wasn’t used in India. And coal wasn’t even used in Britain initially because water wheels provided a far more efficient and cheap source of energy. Problem with water wheels though is that factory locations are limited and industrialists had to build entire towns from scratch for the workforce.

                  With coal, the industrialist opened up options for location and “one size fits all” slums for workers could be cobbled together in city environments that already possessed much of the basic infrastructure missing in situations where a factory or mill was run off water.

            • marty mars 1.1.2.2.3.2

              Robert i have left you a message on your blog. Thanks mate.

  2. John Shears 2

    Yesterday Is History, Tomorrow is a Mystery, Today is forever. ???

  3. Tony Veitch (not etc) 3

    Frankly, Bill, there isn’t one.

    What will happen to our globe via climate breakdown is already factored in, or, because of our inability to see clearly, and to act decisively before we are overwhelmed, will continue along the same course that caused the problems in the first place.

    Enjoy it while it lasts, mate.

    • BM 3.1

      This.

      Unless someone comes up with a technological breakthrough which enables us to alter the climate and keep it in check then I think it’s going to be all over rover for most humans.

      • tracey 3.1.1

        So glad people like you only get to vote once every 3 years rather than having any actual power. You cave in so easily. A few weeks ago you implored the Greens to join Nats after years of baggibg them here. That ladted a short period of time then you were hating on them again. We just need kiwiblog to suggest there is an answer and you will be the new trumpeter for climate change rescue.

        • BM 3.1.1.1

          I always thought the climate change aspect of the Greens was a waste of time.

          Work on pollution, clean water, conservation, achievable stuff.

          • boggis the cat 3.1.1.1.1

            Why bother, if you believe that the situation with climate change has doomed us anyway?

            Typical conservative fatalism / abdication of responsibility.

    • Bill 3.2

      Well no. (As in I disagree).

      If we stop burning fossil right now and commit to zero carbon energy sources, then that in itself will drive the plethora of adaptive changes that we need to make in other areas (land use etc)…and we may avoid catastrophic levels of bad shit as a consequence.

      The problem as I see it, isn’t so much about what to do (we know what to do), but how to “take out the captain” who’s refusing to make a sane call, so that we can get on with it?

      • tracey 3.2.1

        And dealing with the BM type mentalities…

        • Bill 3.2.1.1

          The BM type mentality is in jar no. 3, the one labelled “tech magic” , and it’s a very sizable jar with bugger all room left in it.

          And it’s filled with hues of green as well as hues of red or blue if you know what I mean.

          • Tracey 3.2.1.1.1

            I know exactly what you mean. The helpless kitten act is not for me, BM can have it.

          • boggis the cat 3.2.1.1.2

            There is a lot of money to be made from swapping out the fossil-fuel economy with a renewable sourced economy. Capitalism is risk-averse and very, very stupid; but there are a few people with capital who have realised this. The tipping point has been reached, I think.

            Whether we’re going to be able to rein in climate change fast enough to prevent massive problems for the poorest people is the present question. If not, then there needs to be a strategy for handling huge population migration. (The present preferred political strategy seems to be: build up defences to keep people out of the wealthy countries, and pretend that nothing can be done. The BMs of the world are quite comfortable with that argument.)

            • Sam aka clump 3.2.1.1.2.1

              At the climate conference in Copenhagen 2003 Beijing lobbied western governments to give them technology at or near $zero so they could scale up renewables or just burn coal to feed a billion people. Was a convincing argument IMO. Of course every one just laughed @Beijing. So now they just pinch interlectual property and reverse engineer there own tech. Only thing is when you steal IP in order to become a super power (again) once you dominate the tech space, every one else pretty much start pinching it back I.e movies, just as an example. If Beijing movie industry was to become more dominant than Hollywood, then every one would start pinching Chinese made movies. Then Beiging will likely move to protect its own IP, or military hardware, or citizens and so on and so on. Further fueling the race to the bottom.

              Luckily the cost of photo voltaic cells essential in the production of solar panels is near zero. Might just dodge the bullet.

              • boggis the cat

                Beijing is already clamping down on IP of various types. Their industry has started to dominate locally, and is exporting high value products now with a lot invested in various types of IP.

                If they choose to enforce laws in China then they get observed. The penalties are rather extreme.

                • Sam aka clump

                  So then what is the response to climate change? Well it’s the same response we give to any natural disaster – re-establish commerce.

                  • boggis the cat

                    Somewhat beside the point; but yes, probably.

                    In a capitalist system those with the resources want to earn rent, and if they can’t see any rent potential or — the horror! — losing some of their dragon-hoard then they prefer to sit on it.

                    Or buy property in Auckland.

                    • Sam aka clump

                      Well what is capitalism nowadays. Or Communism for that mater. Or what ever. It’s all semantics now. Intermixed, interwoven into the global economy.

                      I largely agree with the stuff said on this post except for maybe what to do about The Great Anthropocene. That means the current wave of extinction is totally man made. And anything that is man made can be unmade.

                      Let’s take a really harsh institution that we don’t argue about like colonisation. Nobody believes that colonisation was good a presume.

                      Never the less everything that has been said in this thread could be said about colonisation. I mean if you toke a look at the colonial commercial houses there were settlers who treated the land very nicely. Well as nice as the technology of the day could allow. Settlers went through great pains to clear the land and put nice fences around it. I mean they didn’t beat them up or anything but it didn’t matter. They were trying to survive in a foreign land. And maybe some of them gave money to the church, taxes, loans for seed, and all kinds of stuff nice people do. But the trouble was the institution of colonisation.

                      Now the institution was wrong. It doesn’t mater whether you do it nicely or not nicely. So the idea that people should be modern day slaves with student debt, mortgage, credit card debt is an intolerable infringement on human rights. Whether the person that paid the meagre wage was nice to them or not. And in the 19th century it was widely recognised that the same was true about people who rented. That it was an intolerable infringement on people’s rights. Even if the guy that rented the ill gotten land was nice.

                      The question is wether decisions over investment, production, distribution, what happens on the shop floor. Conditions of work and all that kind of stuff, wether those decisions should be out of public control.

                      Go back to the 19th century when there was a live, popular libertarian working class movement and you will read in those colonial print news that waged labour was no different to how the land was treated. In fact if you go back to the origins of democratic thought when people claimed to be classical liberals and read the journals from people like Wilhelm Von Humboldt who was the inspiration to John Stuart Mill (you know the great classical liberal and the origins of all business) he said

                      “The leading principle of his thought was that human beings were born to inquire and create under there own initiatives and any work done under outside pressure is inhuman.”

                      And “If a human creates something beautiful under orders we may admire what he does but we despise what he is.”

                      Well that’s classical liberal thought. They don’t tell you that at the Chicago school of economics any more than what Adam Smith really said. But that’s classical liberal thought and very different to what’s claimed today. But it’s classic liberal based on the concepts of human rights and human dignity which is seriously infringed by the structures of business operations. Even if the guys who run it are nice guys.

                      You can’t be a nice guy in certain positions because the institutions are not nice.

                      Now I’m not saying lets all go up Waitangi treaty grounds and shoot flags. Not at all. They’re some of the best manicured areas in the country.

                      But I think that should not lead us to overlook what is fundamentally wrong with that authoritarian structure.

            • Pat 3.2.1.1.2.2

              “Whether we’re going to be able to rein in climate change fast enough to prevent massive problems for the poorest people is the present question.”

              that question has already been answered with an emphatic NO (Kevin Anderson)…and consequently the question is whether we are able to moderate climate change enough to enable the survival of any form of ordered society?….ive yet to see a case convincingly made that presents such an outcome.

              • Sam aka clump

                Well. Every one on the planet has access to $2000USD at least once in there lives by virtue of the simple credit card. Educational programs that are able to put that credit to good use into things that can be rolled over with in 1 month to keep interest repayments manageable. While covering shelter, water, food, and energy requirements. All these things have to be accessed honestly. You don’t want to get to the end of the month only to find that the new washing machine blows out the power bill. And then maybe those below minimum waged goods on the horizon won’t be soo bad.

                • Pat

                  pardon?

                  • Sam aka clump

                    Are you dumb?

                    • Pat

                      i speak moderately well however i do struggle to see any connection between your reply and my post

                    • Sam aka clump

                      You running under the handle Bill or what? Your comment. If you’d bother to get over it. Does talk about the economic disadvantaged and then like any charlatan educator reckons nothing can be done.

                      On the contrary. Lots can be done. You just need to move past the WTF mode and put your brain to good use.

                    • Pat

                      might pay to cut back the dose

                    • Sam aka clump

                      Fuck off time waster

                • Bill

                  Every one on the planet has access to $2000USD at least once in there lives…

                  So Sam aka clump. Here I am. A privileged pink skinned western male who migrated half way around the word a few decades back. And I have never had access to the likes of that kind of money. Nor am I likely to have.

                  And I’m privileged.

                  What planet you living on that allows you entertain ideas like the one you just put forward?

                  • Sam aka clump

                    Well by virtue of a simple DLS cable connected to a thing called the Internet strategically located on a thing called planet fucken earth. Or I could be on the International space station where there are live cameras you could go look at and check if I’m there.

                    I mean fuck me. The fact that you as an author of the standard can sit there and plead ignorance about credit cards is why the Standard is so dangerous to the maximum brain power of New Zealand.

                    • Bill

                      I’m not “pleading” any kind of ignorance. I’m telling it straight.

                      Maybe you don’t understand that the world of money doesn’t work in the same way for those without as it does for those who have?

                    • Sam aka clump

                      Ok. You win. I give up 😂😂😂😂

              • boggis the cat

                ive yet to see a case convincingly made that presents such an outcome.

                Then you’re looking at pessimistic scenarios.

                The split tends to be: bankers and corporations are pessimistic, while scientists and engineers are more optimistic. It comes down to the way these groups are trained to think.

                • Pat

                  “The split tends to be: bankers and corporations are pessimistic, while scientists and engineers are more optimistic. It comes down to the way these groups are trained to think.”

                  that would be wonderful if it could be substantiated…unfortunately it’s bollocks.

                  https://www.climate-series.eng.cam.ac.uk/ccls-2017/lecture-3

                  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-27/climate-scientists-speak-of-their-worst-fears/8631368

                  • Sam aka clump

                    Tesla ion lithium battery multiplied by 80 kilowatt hrs of storage plus laptop minus 20 minutes of my life listening to that dribble in those links = big fucken yawn.

                  • boggis the cat

                    No, it isn’t “bollocks”. Your links don’t counter my assertion — anecdotal information on a handful of personal opinions don’t mean anything: you could cherry-pick the most optimistic / unconcerned scientists as well, as the fossil-fuel lobby does.

                    Science is concerned with identifying and quantifying climate change, and estimating the effects. Scientists are not pessimistic nor alarmist about what they find: it is what it is, and requires addressing (thus the IPCC projections). The AGW identified by science is what engineers then look at dealing with. Just as earlier generations of engineers were tasked with exploiting fossil-fuels, present generations are being tasked with work to omit and replace them.

                    Bankers and corporations are risk-averse, and look at the increasing rates of weather-related problems as a terrifying prospect. Changes that they can’t control frighten them, and they have problems adapting to commercial changes. An example of the result of this attitude: they understand the old industry around oil and gas, and have been suckered into supporting bio-diesel and hydrogen as alternative energy due to similarities in the business model.

                    Insurers are the part of the corporate / banking sector that are best getting to grips with the changing realities. If you look at insurance then you can see that sea level rise is a real thing, as are increased drought and flooding events. They haven’t factored in greater than a couple of meters of sea level rise, as yet — I think that is optimistic, but hope that it turns out to be pessimistic. If insurance for ‘natural disasters’ starts to vanish as a commercial activity then your ‘chicken little’ scenario is starting to look likely, but don’t freak out until that occurs.

                    I haven’t got that much of a problem with alarmist reaction, provided there is at least an indication of suggested solutions — then you can look at whether those solutions are being implemented, and tame your freak-out by finding out what is going on. The world did not stop using fossil-fuels yesterday, or today, and is likely to take at least another decade to really scale down that activity. Looking at that reality, we’re going to have serious problems, and if we didn’t put further effort in then yes, we’d be setting a course for catastrophe: but this is not the actual scenario today. Vehicle manufacturers are scrambling to abandon the ICE, and the existing oil and gas industry is heavily dependent on subsidies to prop up their products — now uncompetitive with existing ‘green’ technology (a position only worsening over time).

                    • pat

                      ‘No, it isn’t “bollocks”. Your links don’t counter my assertion — anecdotal information on a handful of personal opinions don’t mean anything: you could cherry-pick the most optimistic / unconcerned scientists as well, as the fossil-fuel lobby does.’

                      Those two quickly sourced links do far more to counter your sweeping assertion than your own restating of your own unsubstantiated beliefs….I know who’s opinion id place more reliance on.

                      The list of impediments to your projections are so well known it is pointless restating them as you obviously choose to ignore them

    • tc 3.3

      Agreed. The tropics are going to become unfit for habitation possibly in my lifetime and the extreme weather is on the increase as the energy that drives it grows with each cycle.

      Heard 4 scientists on a regular radio slot argue over if a pattern can be determined which was contentious, as the durations not long enough to establish one.

      They all agreed though that the energy is up there so it’s going somewhere as per Newtons third law. Being an Oz show they’re encouraging listeners to be prepared this summer as the scene is set with massive potential for destruction this summer in Victoria.

  4. gsays 4

    What to do?

    Unshackle, as far is possible, from the money system.
    Invest your time, energy, enthusiasm and knowledge into food security and community.
    There are food co-ops around the country. Stop supporting the supermarkets and buy local.
    Go without meat a few days a week.

    Transition towns are a good pointer to a low energy way of living.

    Even if the shit doesn’t go down in your lifetime, you are making it easier for those that will follow.
    Anyhow, what is wrong living more harmoniously with the seasons and walking a little lighter on the earth?

    • Bill 4.1

      So maybe I can entirely unshackled from the money system. Maybe I can either grow all of my food or source it locally. Maybe I can live without meat and also live in an intentional community that’s treading lightly (been there, done that).

      Maybe 10 000 others or 1 000 000 others do the same. What difference would that make if the basic configurations of industrialisation and market driven economies are left in place?

      As it is, billions of people (peasants mostly) are more or less divorced from markets and what not and yet…

      So no.

      The answer doesn’t lie in simply doing “whatever” at an individual level. It has to involve the complete removal of our current socio/economic configurations.

      I’ll put it this way, capitalism isn’t based on total (human) numbers, but on market share….and just 10% of our current population is causing about 50% of our global CO2 emissions. So, hell (somewhat simplistically) we could euthanise a huge proportion of the worlds’ current population (billions of the poorest, of course) who would then be treading very lightly and global warming would continue to proceed at a clip.

      • gsays 4.1.1

        Can’t disagree with any of that, Bill.

        These are things I can do, and show my offspring another way of being.
        I don’t think I can reverse the trajectory of humanity but will do my bit by not making it worse.
        Surely by participating in an alternative it weakens the current configurations.

        Good dialogues to be having.

        • Bill 4.1.1.1

          This might not sit well with you.

          But unless you entertain revolution (forget all the trite nonsense about that involving death and mayhem) then you’re just going to ride the decline and condemn all others to do likewise.

          • marty mars 4.1.1.1.1

            A bloodless revolution destroying and rebuilding societial structures including financial, political and social – because that is the depth of the claws of capitalism and neo liberalism – in all countries around the world. Nice fantasy imo sadly unlikely to happen. I think the war footing has a better chance of success but both are slim – not throwing shade just can’t see people getting off their couch and doing it, mores the pity.

            • gsays 4.1.1.1.1.1

              For a starter, How about replacing the financial structure with a sharing model.
              Not barter, not trade but sharing.
              It can have an influence on the political and social structures too.

              • Yep that would help but I’m not sure if it would be enough. Personally I’ve been waiting for a revolution to start for decades and waiting for monetary collapse and the rejig of society because of that. Mostly now I wait for electronic devices to stop and never start again. So I try to do what I can to have the community around. Strengthen it and nourish it so that we are ready for anything.

                Imagine if electronic devices did stop – a lot would also stop. Media, flights, a lot of war, pollution – in fact it would go a long way towards putting a halt to the slippery slide. And we would coalesce into small communities. We wouldn’t be shit scared of the world events because our gaze would be closer.

                The economic system would stop too at least in its current form.

                Yep big changes needed, big, big, changes…

                • gsays

                  ’tis a bit disheartening to hear you have been waiting decades for the proverbial to go down.
                  Tbh I have only been waiting 10 years, and in the quieter times I tell myself to stop kidding myself and get back on the money go round.
                  Then I look at my teenage son, give myself an uppercut and go back to little red hen mode.

                  In respect to electronics, I have threatened more than once to get a jamming device for home. The conversations that may emerge!

          • gsays 4.1.1.1.2

            Comfortable with revolution.
            Then what?
            Derrick jensen in endgame proposes the only sustainable society (sustainable means making the soil better each season) is basically a stone age society.
            We are well placed here in Aotearoa to do this with maoritanga and the best of the relatively young pioneer culture of the ‘european’.

  5. Sam aka clump 5

    The response is: MCDEM + domestic capabilities + approved first respondents

  6. Drowsy M. Kram 6

    As per the title of this post, in addition to burning fossil fuels, humans are quite good at many activities.

    http://peakoilbarrel.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Terrestrial-Vertebrate-Biomass.jpg

    The ‘elephants’ in the room, so to speak. We are living on borrowed resources.

  7. cleangreen 7

    BM and Boggis the cat, are just both sypmtoms of why we are at now I am so sorry to say here.

    One thing in Boggis the cat’s statement made some sense was this;

    “There is a lot of money to be made from swapping out the fossil-fuel economy with a renewable sourced economy. Capitalism is risk-averse and very, very stupid; but there are a few people with capital who have realised this. The tipping point has been reached, I think.”

    That statement does deserve some consideration.

    Though I am concerned that the “tipping point has already been reached now “and it may be to late but “God loves a trier.” We must try now for all our sakes.

    • Sam aka clump 7.1

      I find it abit of a laugh really. Watching weak minded individuals attempt to conceptualise financial Darwinism from points inside of a figurative tar sands/pit.

  8. greywarshark 8

    This piece about floating islands of plastic degrading the environment seems to belong here. This was seen near a Caribbean island.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11937498\\

    ” She said they passed through floating garbage for “nearly five miles”, adding: “Everywhere we looked, plastic bags of all shapes and sizes: chip bags, ziplocks, grocery, trash, snack bags, other packaging. Some were whole and the rest were just pieces. Sadly, many turtles, fish, whales, and seabirds will mistake those bits of plastic for food.

    “We then reached an area about two miles wide that had multiple trash lines that stretched from horizon to horizon”

  9. Thanks for this post bill and thanks to commenters because I have learned a lot.

    My initial reaction to your question was die. But that’s going to happen anyway so irrelevant really.

    I’ve got kids and they will grow up into the world that is there. I hope the powerful and influential people can show us a way forward and lead with their example.

    I’ve said before a total war footing similar to ww2 where civilian and military brains work together seems the best way forward to me. Sadly the threat will need to be more apparent i think. And total WAR is wrong because the fighting with nature is the problem – total love won’t work for obvious reasons lol.

    • weka 9.1

      The war footing thing is useful to think through, and I agree it’s not quite the right frame. It might work if we put the Aunties in charge of things.

      • marty mars 9.1.1

        Sadly the imminent threat of death individually or culturally/collectively may be where the bar is set. I’ve been watching a lot of ww2 docos and they did it and we could too. The sacrifice would be immense. Governments made the choice and people had to do it. The real problem is the slow nature of the frog boiling – unless a bayonet is poking you it seems a lot will happy pretend it’s someone else’s problem.

        • weka 9.1.1.1

          Yes, I think that by the time we get to imminent threat, we can probably change then. I haven’t given up on us changing before that though, and the more people feel the heat of the pot the better. How to frame that and encourage the conversation and people waking up seems a useful approach.

  10. Angel Fish 10

    “The unfortunate catch is, that much as you or I might feel compelled to act, this socio/economic system has us shackled – we can’t move.”

    You have plenty of choices to make as a consumer!
    Stop acting helpless.
    Identify and address all of your consumptions and then only purchase their environmentally friendly alternatives.
    There is no point waiting for governments to change and there is no need to
    if consumers acted responsibly.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Strong first week of firearms buy-back events
    The first full week of the firearms buy-back and amnesty has produced a strong turnout as events roll out nationwide for the first time. “Momentum is slowly starting to build as community collection events are held across the entire country, ...
    1 day ago
  • New digital service to make business easy
    A new digital platform aims to make it easier for small businesses to access services from multiple government agencies, leaving them more time to focus on their own priorities. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Minister for Small Business Stuart Nash ...
    1 week ago
  • Million-dollar start to gun collection events
    Million-dollar start to gun collection events  Police Minister Stuart Nash says a solid start has been made to the gun buyback and amnesty after the first weekend of community collection events. “Gun owners will walk away with more than ...
    1 week ago
  • Praise after first firearms collection event
    Police Minister Stuart Nash has praised Police and gun owners after the first firearms collection event saw a busy turnout at Riccarton Racecourse in Christchurch. “Police officers and staff have put a tremendous effort into planning and logistics for the ...
    1 week ago
  • New Police constables deployed to regions
    Seventy-eight new Police constables are heading out to the regions following today’s graduation of a new recruit wing from the Royal New Zealand Police College. Police Minister Stuart Nash says the record high number of new Police officers being recruited, ...
    2 weeks ago