Written By:
notices and features - Date published:
7:00 am, January 15th, 2020 - 63 comments
Categories: open mike -
Tags:
The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.
Visit Australia, see the climate destroying politicians. Visit the amazing disappearing Great Barrier Reef, wonder at the world's biggest new coal mine. Join the interactive online campaign to blame the Greens for the bush fires.
Be photographed comforting a singed koala.
Fun for all the family
The politics around the Australian bush fires is almost beyond parody.
Add to this the hypocrisy of the right, ‘to not politicise the bush fires’.
There have been worse bushfires in Australia which have usually led to a commission of inquiry. The current bushfires will result in a commission of inquiry but it is not clear what, if anything, will be learnt that was and is not already known.
http://royalcommission.vic.gov.au/Commission-Reports/Final-Report.html
Some say we've seen Australia's bushfires worse than this, but they're ignoring a few facts
There have been bushfires that have resulted in a higher number of fatalities….
FIFY
aj
Yes, you are correct. I was focused on people. I’m not sure what you’re focused on. Houses, perhaps? 🙂
No, you're not actually focused on people. You're focused on immediate mortality in order to minimise the current fires' overall impact on people.
For example, did the fires you think were "worst" have people collapsing from the smoke 200 miles away?
McFlock
That was the impressive thing about the devastating 2009 fires. It was the first time in recorded history that such large fires produced absolutely no smoke.
you dodged the question:
Feel free to say "no". Feel just as free to say that you have no fucking idea – that would be an equally plausible response.
Or feel free to say "yes" and provide a link to prove it.
McF: Ross is "ignoring a few facts", obviously didn't bother with the article I posted up thread that counters the sort of stuff Ross is peddling.
Anyway, a summary from that article:
(source)
Worth a read IMO, written by a couple of ANU scientists (one climate, one bushfire).
Yeah, he's interpreting "worst" in pretty much the only possible way (immediate bodycount) that lets him argue that there have been, like, two "worse" fires in 200 years. Both in the last 40 years. So AGW is therefore not a problem. It'd be funny if it weren't so damned tragic.
AGW is therefore not a problem.
Those are your words.
I did make the point that there was a commission of inquiry into the 2009 bushfires. I very much doubt anything new will be learnt from the latest fires that wasn’t already known.
Those are your words.
It's funny how everyone commenting here who has a few clues comes to the same conclusion about your comments, at which point you disavow any intent of having meant it. I wonder if there's a word to describe what you're doing?
@PM
Not necessarily. I've seen this sort of conversation here many times, at least part of it must arise because when conservatives comment here they know they must walk on eggshells. Hence they tend to prevaricate and hedge their bets more than if they felt free to be forthright. It leads to clumsy communication and often comes across as disingenuous. Hell even I laid that exact charge at Wayne the other day.
It doesn't help that we tend to automatically assign conservatives the worst of motives without pausing to read them carefully. Done it myself often enough.
I’ve never hedged my bets. Many commenters here have criticised Israel and their occupation of Palestine but funnily enough I’ve never had the urge to label them anti-Semitic.
Even if those six words are a scurrilous misinterptretation of your actions, is the rest of the comment fair?
About as unfair as you can get. 🙂
so in what ways other than immediate bodycount have previous fires been "worse"?
@McF
Bodycount is a particularly poor measure IMO, as the Aussies actually learnt from 2009 fires.
(Whittaker 2019)
Suspect that discouraging stay & defend is a significant part of why the number killed by the current fires is much lower than Black Saturday. I wonder if something like number of buildings burned might give a better idea of severity? (Particularly when comparing between fire seasons where evacuate/stay messaging has been different.)
@Ross
How about explaining your stance on climate change a bit more? You deny that you're a denier while pushing lines/points frequently made by deniers. You then refuse to elaborate, which just invites the obvious conclusion …
Ref.: Whittaker, J., 2019. Ten years after the black Saturday fires, what have we learnt from post-fire research?. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 34(2). link
yeah, but gotta give Ross a chance to demonstrate he isn't resting his entire case just on bodycount.
thanks for that Alice, I hadn't seen the connection with the absence of El Nino before.
The problem is with the Royal Commissions into the Bush Fires over here in Oz, a lot of the recommendations between the States and the Fed's don't get enacted for what ever reason, and some cases the States and local councils don't always enacted some of the recommendations either.
The big problem we are facing at the moment is the fire season weather you are in the Sth or Eastern parts of Oz or like me in the Nth NT is getting longer, the fire environment/ conditions are getting more extreme aka crown fires hence the poor koala getting smash this fire season, more running fires due to the lack or no moisture in the soil which also effects fire management in cooler seasons aka burn off or traditional fire management practices and the ember attacks are getting more dangerous etc etc.
With all the above adding in with CC, the current set up of the Rural Fire Services, inaction from the Fed's down the local councils if you have one over CC etc. The whole system of Fire management and Fire Fighting is a train wreck waiting to happen. This being the yr its happen for the Southern, Western and Eastern States on the conditions that we faced last Nth NT fire season and going on current rainfall for our Northern Australia Monsoon Season atm we are going to be up shit creek again this coming fire season.
I did submit a piece to be posted here on "The Standard" on last yrs Northern NT Fire Season from my POV on the ground as a resident in the Darwin's rural as we come under the townie firies and as a bush firey out at the NT Bush Fires Dundee Brigade.
Climate Change
So we have an every increasing NZ population why allow this to continue when we are one of the highest per capita emissions? We have been told by
so over a 50k increase in immigration in the last year has required an additional 20,000+ houses and added 40,000 more vehicles to the road.
https://www.labour.org.nz/immigration
Who is to make the effort to reduce these GHG when we have policies like this Tourism with MBIE forecast an increase of 37.1% from 2017 to 2024.
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/assets/5c05b7bfce/nz-tourism-forecasts-2018-2024-report.pdf
And we wonder why NZ is increasing its GHG emissions. These are not samples of leading the way – Perhaps just a nod and smile to make us feel better as the world turns 😱
[edited formatting to make it clearer who was saying what – weka]
Population is very difficult to talk about on the left, because it's tied to immigration and that debate has often had racism woven through it. Trad lefties also seem to hold the position that perpetual growth is possible (and desirable?). I see that as a consequence of philosophies that are grounded in human justice without being built on ecological justice. This is changing but too slowly imo.
If we decouple population from immigration for a minute, and just look at population as an ecological issue, then it gets easier to see and talk about. Any given landbase can only sustain so much life. If we want food, water, shelter and modern lifestyle, those all come from what nature provides and this is where the accounting should begin. If we're not growing food and other resources in our local watershed we are expecting to extract them from someone else's. That may be done fairly and sustainably, but not under the perpetual growth economics we currently use. We are depleting most things, but outsourcing that so it is less visible. Looking at what each landbase in NZ could potentially sustain is a useful way to reframe population issues.
When I bring this up the most common response I get is that we have plenty of land and could easily support far more people. But no-one can produce the actual accounting for that, it's just an assumption people have. I remain unconvinced, because in addition to the food and resources, we also need to do habitat restoration and carbon sequestration to prevent the climate and ecological crises. We also need a buffer for future weather events that will take out sometimes large parts of ecosystems (fire, flood, wind, drought).
Ditto tourism, which is a huge problem that NZ is likewise not ready to face.
If we stop exporting so much of what we produce from the land, NZ can feed many more people here. But then we need other, more sustainable, forms of foreign-sourced income..
true, but then if a really large % of land is in dairy and other export livestock, and we convert that to cropping, there are GHG emissions associated with the plough farming, and with the presumed increase in population. Regenag/organics takes more land.
That freed up land still needs to also be used for reforesting and increasing biodiversity, climate mitigation, and climate buffer, so I'm wary of the idea that it becomes easily available for food growing for lots more people, especially when we take into account climate change affecting the growing of crops. My main point here is that few are looking at the overall picture (from a sustainability pov) and we're basing our political debate on some distinct assumptions rather than data and analysis.
Do we need as much foreign-sourced income as we currently have?
We do not need any more land to grow food for ourselves – much less, if anything. That applies to crops, not just animals.
And the overall design of the economy is a larger question as you say.
I'm talking about how big a population NZ can sustain. Obviously there is an upper limit, but no-one knows what it is. Instead we assume that there is plenty of land, but that assumption is based on information from utterly unsustainable systems.
I get what you are saying here. If 90% of NZ ag is export, and we freed up that land for our own food production then there'd be heaps of land. But, how many people could be fed, clothed, sheltered and so on, taking all the other ecological issues into account?
Yes. Our energy and transport systems would be earlier bottlenecks than food. And I’m saying 90% of crops are already exported as well. Someone may have actual data. 🙂
NZ population in 1800 was estimated to be between 100,000 and 200,000….by my calculations (rough) NZ land mass could support just over 4 million at pre industrial revolution stocking rates…it would be reasonable to expect some premium due to technological advance but I'd suggest that premium wouldnt be terribly large so I suspect we are already over carrying capacity at current population of 5 million (and growing)
what were you factoring in to your calculations pat? Is that food or all resources (allowing for some imports)?
calculated on world population pre industrial revolution (relatively stable at around 1 billion) and habitable land area…if you apply those factors to NZ we end up with a population of a little over 4 million.
The reason I think we have plenty of land is because we're the 167/194 lowest population density in the world, almost all our land is highly productive for food (agricultural or pastoral) as opposed to being arid or otherwise inappropriate, and we have the 9th largest EEZ around us.
I'd even go so far as to say we have such abudance that we have an obligation to help feed the world (just not with dairy).
That said, the precise "population limit" we have is a sliding function of priorities: what level of pollution are we willing to emit, are we controlling food and (especially) water exports, are we managing stock/crop, arable land, other land use demands, waterways, transport infrastructure towards certain priorities, and so on. So by some models we have already exceeded our limit. By most global models, we're nowhere near.
Then there is the question of demographics – if we have stable population level, what if we get top heavy in age, like Japan? We'd have to put our foot on the immigration throttle for a bit, just to provide services and food for those less able to supply themselves. Just like at the other end, we need to plan schooling around birth bubbles as they get older.
Might be interesting to see if there is a government department that integrates all these questions in one place – what population changes do we expect, and what level is sustainable according to different priorities. They all do forward planning on their own patch, but not sure if anyone has the big picture.
As a footnote to that; interestingly NZ is one of a small handful of developed nations with a flat demographic pyramid.
Almost all the other more developed regions, with the notable exception of Argentina and a few others, have an inverted pyramid.
But otherwise yes, most of what your saying here makes good systems sense. My only quibble, and I may be out of date on this, is around the fertility of our soils. We don't have large river basins or loess soil plains with millions of years of accumulated minerals in them … NZ imports much of it. And that's been challenged already IIRC.
yeah fair call.
Coincidentally I ended up in a convo yesterday about NZ fishing stocks. Looks like we are at our limit already in terms of take.
Afaik the NZ government bases all its work on the fossil fuelled economy. I'd be incredibly surprised if they were doing work on how much food and other resources we can grow using regenag for NZ use relative to population size.
Likewise global assessments, although there are better acknowledgements of the value of small, local growers.
I'm using the term sustainable here in its green sense. Not the sense that's been appropriated into the mainstream. So sustainable is about how a system can by and large keep itself healthy and functional, in perpetuity, without producing pollution and without extracting materials/resources from other systems in ways that deplete those other systems.
NZ's ecological footprint is something like 2.5x what the planet can sustain. We are a long way off sustainable.
Lowering immigration wont change emmisions you realise ? Sure those people wont show up on our spreadsheet but they'll still be somewhere causing roughly the same emmisions.
We are only responsible for our emissions. Every other nation is the same.
Sweet we'll just shift all our polluting to third world countries, problem solved,
What would the world's climate action negotiators know anyway.
Are they the same people that think emmisions trading will save us?
Fortunately they have our greater wisdom to draw upon.
Hear hear . I've always reckoned that if they made me lord tyrant of the world i'd solve the worlds ills.🤣
We have no control of what other countries do. Someone immigrates here our GHG increase as we now require 0.4 of a house and 0.8 additional cars does the other country have a corresponding reduction ?
nz has undertaken to reduce in total GHG emissions, not per capita. So we have added GHG outputs where does the corresponding reduction from within NZ come from ?and it has to be within NZ not a corresponding offset from another country
Weasel words.
“I can reveal that I believe it probably would’ve been four embassies,” Trump said.”
As Washington Post political editor James Downie writes, you can't fact check beliefs.
"According to The Washington Post Fact Checker, in President Donald Trump's first year, he uttered almost 2,000 "false or misleading" claims. In 2018, he nearly tripled his total from the previous year, adding 5,689 more false or misleading claims. And his 2019 total was more than the two previous years combined – 7,725 as of mid-December."
He continues. "But now the president has a way around facts: beliefs.
In an interview with Fox News, Trump-friendly host Laura Ingraham asked the president what attacks Iranian Major General Qasem Soleimani had been planning against US citizens and facilities. "I can reveal that I believe it probably would've been four embassies," Trump said."
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/118756206/trump-has-a-new-way-around-facts-in-the-killing-of-iranian-general?cid=edm:stuff:dailyheadlines&bid=1248454770
Beliefs….
Well, Hallelujah brother
Welcome to the theocracy
Is magic Radio the new Whaleoil? Every fricken wingnut's sob story or conspiracy theory is laundered through there and into the lazy ass MSM…
Un-listenable.
This was on the giggle box last night during the news and was quite interesting.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-15/growing-algae-to-brew-greener-beer/11720484?section=good-news
Cool, eh? Early days yet. I don't rate their chances of selling lime-green beer tho. Okay, that's not necessarily implied in the story – probably just me looking at the pictures & jumping the gun, huh? 😎
These pale, male, dinosaur boomers sure hate Jacinda Ardern:
https://i.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/tv-radio/118795742/i-get-sick-and-tired-of-that-woman-australian-broadcaster-slams-jacinda-ardern
"that woman"
Keep up the good work Jacinda 😀
Ah, Steve Price you either love him or hate him as he does trend to be a bit bunt sometimes on what he says on that show and does get a roasting from the other panellists now and again. I do watch the show now and again for a giggle, but not of late.
Funnier slant here: https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/15-01-2020/best-holiday-ever-how-australians-enjoyed-pm-jacinda-arderns-trip-to-the-lucky-country/
"The readers of the Daily Mail Australia have overwhelmingly declared Ardern is doing a better job with the bushfires than ScoMo."
Hui all, for those of you interested in UK politics, this is compulsory reading…
https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2020/01/13/the-center-blows-itself-up-care-and-spite-in-the-brexit-election/
You're right. It's a superb analysis. Even though I can't accept the primary thesis (equating centrism & neoliberalism) everything else rings true. 👍🏻
"Centrist" has become a spit word for some around here, yet in my view it has little to do with specific labels or political ideology. I see it more as an orientation that's primarily interested in negotiating agreements across competing interests and getting shit done.
But yes I agree at first glance the analysis is pretty compelling; the breakdown of centrist consensus, the weakening of national identity and the impact of uncontrolled globalisation has seen a fracturing of our societies in ways we never quite expected.
It also neglects a rather salient point, that while people tend to vote progressive in their 20's and 30's … accumulated life experience tends to shift them as they get older. If we imagine that all we need for a truly utopian liberal society to emerge is to wait for the bastard boomers to all die off … we're in for a disappointment.
We've always had internal conflicts between the equivalents of "carers" and "administrators" in Labour.
Now we can stop with all this endless Why Labour Lost wank and get to the business of winning government in one of the last social democrat governments in the world.
Yup. 'Caring and fairing' are perfectly fine as personalised goals; but operating (administering) complex moderns societies demands a lot broader competency than this, and voters damn well know it at a gut level.
Sanctuary, before you do any more commentary on why any party of the left loses, do yourself a favour and join one, and fight to win the 2020 election.
The experience will do you a lot of good.
Fucking nazis aren't even trying to hide their herrenrasse goals.
https://twitter.com/MichaelEHayden/status/1217104704032911365
Any apologies from the morons who swallowed republican ratfucker's lies and then regurgitated them in their entirety?
While it is true that the former secretary of state’s emails garnered the most attention thanks to James Comey, the Berkman Klein Center devoted an entire section of their report to an exposé titled, “Dynamics of Network Propaganda: Clinton Foundation Case Study.” They documented how the false allegations in Peter Schweizer’s book, Clinton Cash, were legitimated, not just by right-wing media, but by the New York Times and later by major outlets like the Associated Press and the Washington Post.
Even after Trump won the election, he and his enablers in right-wing media wouldn’t let the story go. In an obvious attempt to win the president’s favor after recusing himself from the Russia investigation, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions appointed U.S. Attorney John Huber to look into the allegations about the Clinton Foundation.
According to the Washington Post, Huber found nothing.
[,,,]
Beyond getting the story wrong so many times, it is important for those who colluded to be held accountable because we are now witnessing the same group of people spread conspiracy theories about other Democrats. Peter Schweizer is the one who initiated the whole Biden/Burisma lie in his book, Secret Empires. Just in case Biden isn’t the Democratic nominee, he is about to publish a book this month titled, Profiles in Corruption, that will attempt to smear the rest of the 2020 presidential candidates.
Keep in mind that Schweizer is president of the Government Accountability Institute, which was founded by Steve Bannon and is funded by the Mercer family. He is also senior editor-at-large for Breitbart News. Jane Mayer summarizes what we learned about the Bannon-Schweizer method of collusion from Joshua Green’s book, Devil’s Bargain.
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/01/13/hillary-clinton-has-been-exonerated-again/
I expect no one will respond at this late hour. Mike Williams blowing like a bull on RNZ's holiday conversation at 4 concentrated on Law and Order. It quickly came clear it was down to poverty, which the convict advocate had helped produce as the chief promoter of Labour in a previous career. 84: War on Maori.
Not an election winner. Despicable.
But this is the age of the talkers (Sanders, Trump), despite the NZ political scene. If it isn't a Savage it'll be a fascist.