Thank you Charlie.

Written By: - Date published: 10:56 pm, April 24th, 2017 - 60 comments
Categories: class war, climate change, energy, Environment, global warming, science, vision - Tags:

One of the speakers at Dunedin’s March for Science was a young woman by the name of Charlie. She was introduced as a part of 350.org, and I admit my heart sank a tad as I prepared to be accosted by the ‘same old’ pollyannaish spiel about how we’re moving in the right direction and how everything will be just fine.

How wrong I was.

Charlie (I spoke briefly with her and a friend afterwards) knows that any talk of  transitioning to a low or zero carbon future is ‘off the table’. She knows that all the renewable resources being developed are far too little and far too late, and anyway, are being deployed on top of existing fossil sources of energy – not replacing them.

She gets that investing hope in impossible or improbable  technologies (BECCS) in impossible timeframes (less than 20 years) that sets a world of logistics off to one side, is just plain stupid and disempowering.

She’s cognisant of the fact that this isn’t ‘the Anthropocene’ as many like to claim – that it’s a small percentage of humanity that is responsible for global warming and not the entire human race fulfilling some kind of dark manifest destiny.

In a nutshell, Charlie, and I dare to hope a good number of other young people, fully understand that incrementalism – that which essentially amounts to running down the train tracks to avoid the locomotive of global warming, isn’t the direction to go in and is no kind of strategy at all.

Charlie’s aware we need a clean break – a radical and immediate departure. She looks to her possible futures and sees that only revolutionary ones contain prospects.

I owe Charlie and her peers that possibility.

And all of us who are currently closing our eyes, or grasping for a rationale that will justify us hanging on to what we’ve got; that will excuse us approaching the future in a linear fashion whereby tomorrow might be perceived as flowing in a seamless or recognisable progression from yesterday – we owe them that possibility too.

Charlie pointed me to the following observation made by Tim DeChristopher – “If we want to change the status quo, we might have to work outside of some of those rules because the legal pathways available to us have been structured precisely so we don’t make change.”

Indeed. So I’ll be searching out Charlie and her friends again and lending the knowledge and experience this old bugger has accrued from past years of organising, and from times living a less than orthodox life, and putting it all at their disposal to use or discard as they see fit.

It’s the least I can do.

And thank you again Charlie for those few minutes of fresh air, for expressing that rare thing –  a flourish of hope that’s firmly rooted in reality.

Last word to Charlie.

 “I believe there is nothing more radical than burning more coal, oil and gas despite the urgent call for drastic climate action by frontline communities. There’s nothing scarier than the future of our planet, which our lives depend upon, being decided by a few powerful people.

The power to change the world right now is not democratic, but belongs to a few people. We can change that now.”

60 comments on “Thank you Charlie. ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Gosman 1
    25 April 2017 at 3:05 am

    How much of your experience has been of successful efforts to change the system rather than merely to fight rear guard actions to attempt to starve off what you perceive as the worst effects?

  2. marty mars 2
    25 April 2017 at 7:54 am

    Perhaps if you had listened to those of us who said your rigid view of what these organisations are and who are in them was incorrect or at least skewered by your own life experience and attitude then it wouldn’t have been such a surprise or revelation.

    How do you reconcile the individual acts and responses of an individual with these types of organisations now (who I assume you think are still doing next to nothing and all down the wrong pathway anyway) ?

    • Bill 2.1
      25 April 2017 at 9:13 am

      It’s the very first time I have heard any public speaker speak from the basis of hard science and reality marty. I absolutely stand by every criticism I have made of various organisations and individuals who have, and do, peddle false hope.

  3. Red 3
    25 April 2017 at 8:43 am

    Bill your problem is your medicine is worst than the cure The science on climate change no one denies, Including human impact, what is not irrefutable is the degree of human impact, the degree of change (you assume nothing will change re carbon out put etc) and what we can do about it, You seem to think and are only open to radical revolution is the answer by destroying the system which will do more harm than good, hence why you lack any purchase in your views, not to mention good old fashion fire and brimstone doomsday prophesies really does not do it these day.People need hope to work with, with out it you have nothing, this is the level you should work on, and yes be less grumpy and old

    • Bill 3.1
      25 April 2017 at 9:19 am

      If we’d begun to enact market based policies to reduce carbon emissions back in the early 90s, then they just might have been effective enough. But we didn’t.

      Today, yearly carbon emissions are about 60% above what they were back in the early 90s and no tax or carbon price mechanism (the studies have been done) will affect carbon levels to anything like the degree required in the time that we have left to us.

      So the choice is to ignore the science and pretend we can preserve some form of business as usual and so guarantee temperature increases in excess of 2 degrees, or on the other hand, get real.

      I prefer the latter.

    • weka 3.2
      25 April 2017 at 10:48 am

      “The science on climate change no one denies,”

      Actually huge numbers deny it, which is the point. I disagree with Bill’s position on incrementalism, not because incrementalism is right/will save the day, but because it’s one of the pathways to the societal tipping point we desperately need. But there are people who know how serious the situation is and won’t respond with direct action, and there are people who still think electric cars are going to save the day. That’s denial on both counts. Then there are the people who know how bad things are and don’t care or have given up. That’s a different thing.

      I agree with you that people need hope to work with though.

  4. ianmac 4
    25 April 2017 at 8:52 am

    Perhaps Charlie is making a call to arms. But the status quo has a mighty machine to dampen/crush the revolution in the name of National Security. Five Eyes is part of the machine. Comfort with the status quo calls for tomorrow sometime, not today.
    So where to from here?

    • garibaldi 4.1
      25 April 2017 at 9:48 am

      Where to from here? Just ask Red – he seems to think ‘she’ll be right mate’.

    • Anne 4.2
      25 April 2017 at 9:52 am

      Charlie IS making a call to arms.
      As a former Met. Service employee, we were talking about “global warming” – and the deleterious effect it was going to have on the planet – back in the 1970s. But nobody listened, and that allowed the national and international power blocs to consolidate and present a united front against even acknowledging C.C. existed. Their motivation was (and still is) based purely on maintaining power at all costs.

      Add to that the human race has allowed despots, narcissists and psychopaths to gain political or economical control of so many countries and entities… and it is not in their DNA to show any consideration, empathy towards their fellow countrymen/women or indeed ‘nature’ as a whole.

      It can only be overcome by political means in the first instance, but as ianmac says… how do you do it? We’ve been trying for decades and they still won’t listen. It is as much a form of defence mechanism now because they can’t admit to being wrong, and so grossly irresponsible.

      • Bill 4.2.1
        25 April 2017 at 10:01 am

        but as ianmac says… how do you do it?

        I’m going to go with Charlie’s last sentence and suggest that embracing and developing democratic bases of power is the way to go…in other words, bring the power back to where it rightfully belongs.

        That’s not a quick fix and we don’t have time on our side, so we’d do well to start on it today.

        Talk to your family, friends, acquaintances, work mates…see what you can come up with. It might only be something very small to begin with, but small things can spread and small things can grow – sometimes quite fast too 😉

        • Anne 4.2.1.1
          25 April 2017 at 10:18 am

          Trouble is they don’t want to know Bill. They’re sick of me blathering on about it.

          To be fair, they know how serious it is but they want our “leaders” to bite the bullet on their behalf, so they go out and vote for narcissists, despots and psychopaths. You can’t win! 🙁

          • Bill 4.2.1.1.1
            25 April 2017 at 10:32 am

            Then find “the Charlie” who lives near you. If you’re in Dunedin, that’s easy enough done.

            Maybe there are quite extensive networks of young people who actually do ‘get it’ (so, you know, who’re not buying into any of the ‘magical thinking’ that pervades so much of the discussion around global warming), but whose voices just aren’t being heard; whose fears aren’t being heeded. And maybe they ‘just’ need us oldies to tear down the wall society’s built between our generations, and for us to listen to them and then for us to get on board with them.

            • garibaldi 4.2.1.1.1.1
              25 April 2017 at 10:53 am

              Imo the elephant in the room is that if you acknowledge the seriousness of CC then you have to admit Capitalism has to end , and this is a bridge too far for your average Western human.

              • BM …
                25 April 2017 at 10:56 am

                Not just capitalism but democracy as well.

                • weka …
                  25 April 2017 at 12:28 pm

                  why would democracy have to end? Both Bill and Charlie are talking about increasing democracy.

                  • BM …
                    25 April 2017 at 12:49 pm

                    How do you stop political parties reverting the country back to the “bad old ways”?

                    Take, for example, You could have a pro-climate change coalition squeak in at election time, once they’re then they go about trying to dismantle capitalism, impose all sorts of controls etc, etc.

                    The other part of the population really aren’t going to be that enthused and the rival political parties will no doubt try and tap into that anger and state that they’ll reverse these draconian measures and get the country back on track if elected.

                    This will be highly likely as there will be no doubt quite a period of upheaval and pain for the voters of both camps, which will result in the pro-climate change coalition getting the heave-ho and that will be the end of that for a generation at least.

                    Therefore for any sort of successful transition to occur democracy needs to be given the boot.

                    • keepcalmcarryon …
                      25 April 2017 at 1:27 pm

                      For everyone who has Netflix, watch the Norwegian series “Occupied” which (so far fictionally) deals with some of the political realities of sudden change.
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okkupert

                      Definately there is a corporate power imbalance in the world at the moment but the main reason nothing much will be done is due to human nature and our inability and unwillingness as a species to think beyond the immediate future or even comprehend our own individual mortality and think beyond ourselves for future generations. Some people can – like Charlie by the sound of it. But most will not.

                      Think Easter Island http://scribol.com/anthropology-and-history/archaelogy/how-deforestation-caused-easter-islands-society-to-collapse/ ,think dodo, moa extinction, it is the human way.
                      That doesnt mean i think we should do nothing, its just that we wont.
                      I suggest its an evolutionary coping mechanism – for our mortal species to be able to exploit and survive an environment. Propogation of the species, who knew we would run out of environment? Further more, we are a tribal animal and the needs of my tribe always outway the needs of yours.
                      We are not as enlightened as we think we are, as a species, despite some brilliant shining exceptions.

                      The (eco)system will collapse before our behaviour changes.
                      Ditto local and world fish stocks and capitalism itself by the way,
                      My worry is things will get very very bad before we get real structural change.

                    • weka …
                      25 April 2017 at 2:16 pm

                      Take, for example, You could have a pro-climate change coalition squeak in at election time, once they’re then they go about trying to dismantle capitalism, impose all sorts of controls etc, etc.

                      That would be a daft strategy and anti-democratic. More the kind of thing that’s likely to happen under National during times of big upheaval, they’re the anti-democracy party after all.

                      I have no idea how capitalism could be replaced but I would think that progressive parties would work with the people, not go all authoritarian and fascist.

                      You also seem to think that the end of capitalism would have to be initiated by political parties. I keep saying this, political parties follow the change that is happening in society. That’s why there were people in the 1970s talking about climate change and it’s taken until the 2000s for the mainstream parties to get on board (or not, in the case of National).

                      Did you read the post? Did you understand what it was saying?

                    • Gosman …
                      25 April 2017 at 10:42 pm

                      Why would ypu think progressive parties would work with the people? They haven’t in the past.

                    • Bill …
                      26 April 2017 at 10:45 am

                      Why do you think the only possible way to get to the future is on your knees?

                • garibaldi …
                  25 April 2017 at 3:11 pm

                  On reflection I must say I agree with BM about having to lose democracy to carry out what is necessary to slow CC down. The practice of one person/one vote would not let it happen because more people vote for ‘what’s in it for me’ than for altruistic reasons.
                  So ,yes it would pretty much have to be totalinarianism worldwide if we want to get results. Fat chance eh?

                  • Bill …
                    25 April 2017 at 3:47 pm

                    Parliamentary representation is really just an empty democratic shell – all form and no substance.

                    Stick with that as a bar for what passes as being democratic, and sure, it slips into (a deeper) authoritarianism very easily.

                    But hold democracy to be people having a meaningful say over things that affect them, and we begin to move in a completely different direction – away from parliamentary representation and the threat of totalitarianism and towards democratic processes and procedures that are embedded within communities – and that are constantly refined and honed by the communities that are utilising them.

                    For a present day example of what that might look like or of how it could look and work, do a quick google on Rojava and their organisational structures.

                  • Carolyn_nth …
                    25 April 2017 at 3:50 pm

                    That’s a very narrow view of democracy, but one reinforced regularly by our mainstream media. It is grounded in the individualistic culture of our capitalist system.

                    It’s a narrow version of democracy because it focuses on representative elections.

                    A deeper and more democratic system would involve much more debate among people at the grass roots in the community. Such on-going political debates would focus people much more on the measures that would benefit society as a whole.

                    We need better political education, and more participation in discussions by the general population. That would be closer to real democracy, or participatory democracy.

                    Our current version of democracy is a bit of a sham.

                    Edit: kind of a snap, Bill.

              • Anne …
                25 April 2017 at 11:40 am

                Precisely garibaldi. And people can’t bring themselves to accept their style of life has got to change and so the myth that all is well will continue until something really terrible happens. Then they might move into survival mode… by which time it will be too late.

                Capitalism as it is implemented in today’s world has got to dramatically change.

                • weka …
                  25 April 2017 at 12:29 pm

                  one of the things we can do is talk about life beyond capitalism and how that might be a good thing. People are more likely to change if they can see something good about it.

                  • Anne …
                    25 April 2017 at 12:41 pm

                    Yes. Perhaps we should stop using the ‘ism’ words altogether because it seems to frighten a lot of people one way or the other. Common sense politics can’t be squeezed into a particular doctrine. It is more often than not a response to a given set of circumstances and those circumstances are constantly changing.

                    It always comes back to the same thing though. Educate people properly and give them a decent standard of living, and they will make better choices in their lives. I use the word “choice” in it’s normal setting and not part of a neo-liberal political doctrine.

                    • weka …
                      26 April 2017 at 8:37 am

                      It always comes back to the same thing though. Educate people properly and give them a decent standard of living, and they will make better choices in their lives. I use the word “choice” in it’s normal setting and not part of a neo-liberal political doctrine.

                      I like this. Tricky when the govt of the day is actively working against that. In this sense I think Charlie is right, we need to step up the action.

            • weka 4.2.1.1.1.2
              25 April 2017 at 10:54 am

              +1 If people are sick of the blathering then find a different way to talk. And focus on the people who are ready to change. They’re the ones who are more likely to step up. There are those people around, lots of them just don’t know what to do.

              In terms of the post, I think using opportunities to combat the ‘electric cars will save us’ meme is critical. I take a different approach then Bill, because I think Generation Zero etc need to be brought over to the dark side 😉 It’s easier for me to work with middle class communities than working class ones and I see huge potential once the middle class movers and shakers get on board and be wiling to give shit up. But we need this to happen on multiple fronts. The underclasses in particular have serious level skills on how to work with difficult situations. Working together seems the sticking point.

            • lprent 4.2.1.1.1.3
              25 April 2017 at 1:18 pm

              I have been hacking my lungs out with a cough since the start of Easter. Plus pulling a few allnighters at work to get a project out of the door. It hasn’t been conducive to doing mundane things like the blacklist or shopping 🙂

              Lyn has been complaining.

  5. timeforacupoftea 5
    25 April 2017 at 11:45 am

    I can claim that the climate in Dunedin has dramatically changed since the 1950’s till now as I have lived through it, we live in a much milder climate now compared to the 1950’s.

    “BM …
    25 April 2017 at 10:56 am
    Not just capitalism but democracy as well.”

    Geeeees when I read BM … comment that –
    “Not just capitalism but democracy as well”.
    – MUST END, I was thinking of poor Charlie she will be a candidate for suicide or a future burden to New Zealand’s mental health waiting list.

    Lets hope she dose not read TheStandard.org.nz as some previous comments are depressing.

  6. Skeptic 6
    25 April 2017 at 12:48 pm

    I see Wikipedia have defined “climate change denial” as pseudoscience – which I think most, if not all who read this site, would agree. I also see that recent polls on this subject have seen about 85% of ordinary people accepting the reality of climate change (of a cyclic nature) and global warming (by human intervention), with the balance being made up of deniers and don’t knows. These figures seem to hold for most western democracies give or take for local flavour and are pretty much the same +/- 15% for most other countries, with those directly affected already being more than those less affected or in a controlled political atmosphere.

    Given that we now know that 6 degrees change in average mean temperature will mean irreversible weather pattern change, along with sea level rise, increased severity of extreme weather, changed temperate and crop growing zones, increased insect and tropical disease zones, hugely increased insurance and infrastructure replacement costs, massively increased medical and agricultural research expenses and very expensive habitat relocation costs, and that the current exponential growth rate of that change will see this 6 degrees arrive in the early 2040s, while the current curbs on emissions won’t take effect till the 2050s, I think Charlie is speaking for her generation when she talks about “drastic action”. After all, it is her generation, and her immediate descendants who will pick up the costs of our failings. And those costs will be in the tenfold, hundredfold and thousandfold for each succeeding generation.

    As an aged activist from the time of my mis-spent youth, I applaud her intentions, although given the ground level passive support, I think that her ideas of “a few” are somewhat pessimistic. What is very much lacking is leadership in the provision of credible practical alternatives to everyday wastefulness and extravagance so prevalent in our consumer society. As a realist, I think that most people would, if given such practical and meaningful alternatives, willingly adopt them. How to change this overwhelming passive support to active demands for attitudinal change from our political leaders and business/industrial CEOs is a question where coalition building similar to the CND campaign of the 1980s is needed. A broad-based, across sector, mainstream groundswell call for change is, I think the only way the necessary impetus for change will be effective in time before the worst of the 6 degrees patterns impact.

    If we don’t, we may well be the last generation to enjoy a “blessed earth” instead of a “vengeful Gaia”.

  7. Ad 7
    25 April 2017 at 1:55 pm

    I don’t think “climate deniers” are the main obstacle.

    I think the opposition to change is vast. Anthony Giddens as far back as 2002 did a whole book on The Politics of Climate Change. It laid a few of the structural resistances out.

    I sure think there’s a point to protest, and hearing fresh leaders say fresh things. But …

    … But the opposition to climate change activism are too often seen as fact-deniers that are so off the wall that they are psychopathic. I don’t believe they are, generally. I think they like the way things are.

    (After all, Goodies have a philosophy, Baddies have a psychology).

    The prescription for understand why the climate activists aren’t winning is to do the Ideological Turing Test. It was invented by Bryan Caplan the economist of George Mason University.

    It’s simple enough:
    If you truly understand your political adversary, then you should be able to write an essay explicating their point of view so well that a neutral judge cannot tell the difference.

    How many of us, do you think, could pass it?

    • Bill 7.1
      25 April 2017 at 4:34 pm

      I’m not seeing the point Ad. Let’s assume I’d pass that Ideological Turing Test…or not. So what?

      There’s a myriad of systemic and cultural barriers standing between understanding and action. So I might well understand those who want to hang on to (say) our current economic and political paradigms down to the nth degree. And no reasoned argument I put to them – even on their own terms – would shift them, because belief is based on faith, not rationality.

      The task is to find and encourage the doubters. They are the ones open to suggestion.

      Or maybe, juts possibly, to get the true believers with something coming from waaaay left field 😉

      • Ad 7.1.1
        25 April 2017 at 4:51 pm

        The task is to defeat those opposed to sufficient action on climate change.
        The side of the good is not winning, as you regularly remind us.
        So there needs to be a deeper understanding of why the opposition is winning.
        In order to do better at defeating them.

        • Bill 7.1.1.1
          25 April 2017 at 5:23 pm

          The side of the good is not winning, as you regularly remind us.

          Critical, or even sometimes brutally honest evaluation of an analysis or goal is not the same as ‘reminding’ anyone about supposed winning or losing. I don’t think I’ve ever commented within any ‘winning/losing’ frame of reference when talking about global warming – I’d be surprised if you could dig up an instance of me doing that.

          What I have done, and will continue to do, is call bullshit on magical thinking and false hope, whether that’s being peddled by governments, political parties, NGOs, scientists, policy makers or individuals.

          For me, it’s about change – not winning.

          • BM 7.1.1.1.1
            25 April 2017 at 5:34 pm

            How do you make it all happen, Bill?

            What’s the plan going forward? how does NZ go from where we are now to a carbon neutral society? assuming that’s the end goal?

            • Bill 7.1.1.1.1.1
              25 April 2017 at 5:53 pm

              How do I make it all happen!?

              What, you think I’m God or something BM?

              I know you’ve no interest – but a good start would be to heed the basic science and act on the basis of the information we get from that science, without resorting to any ‘magical thinking’ and without skewing any scientific data so that possible actions and policies fit nicely within, and preserve, an economic orthodoxy that’s currently sending us ‘to hell’ at a rate of 2ppm per year.

              In practical terms that requires (besides land use changes) reducing our energy related emissions at a rate of something like 15% per year, year on year. A hard sinking cap would do it.

              • BM …
                25 April 2017 at 6:05 pm

                In practical terms that requires (besides land use changes) reducing our energy related emissions at a rate of something like 15% per year, year on year. A hard sinking cap would do it.

                How do you make that happen? what sort of plan is required to get that implemented?

                • In Vino …
                  25 April 2017 at 7:21 pm

                  Dumb concern trolling. You don’t care a damn, and by the time you realise you should have, it will be too late. Go jump into a polluted river, BM.

                  • BM …
                    25 April 2017 at 7:31 pm

                    Very useful comment.

                    I’m interested in ideas, solutions and how to implement them doesn’t really matter what the topic is about.

                    • Philj …
                      26 April 2017 at 6:06 am

                      What is your solution and ideas on Climate Change BM?

                    • marty mars …
                      26 April 2017 at 9:43 am

                      Lol bm classic bullshit there. Love the line that the topic doesn’t matter because THAT is your role. Concern troll no matter what the subject ffs what a loser.

                      Hey barfly count up those insults will ya.

                    • In Vino …
                      26 April 2017 at 5:08 pm

                      Liar, BM. You pretend too much. Your ‘interest in ideas and solutions’ is always is always skewed to undermining leftist ideas. You have become tiresomely boring.

                • Gosman …
                  25 April 2017 at 10:44 pm

                  Apparently democracy is the answer but not the democracy we have now. A new and localised version that somehow allows us to achieve amazing things. How is immaterial at this stage. It will just work okay.

                  • adam …
                    25 April 2017 at 10:49 pm

                    So you have given up on being a libertarian now Gossy?

                    • Gosman …
                      26 April 2017 at 4:39 am

                      I’ve never been a pure libertarian. My philosophy can be best summed up as ‘The Economist’s editorial position’ or ‘Libertarian realism’.

                • weka …
                  26 April 2017 at 8:53 am

                  “In practical terms that requires (besides land use changes) reducing our energy related emissions at a rate of something like 15% per year, year on year. A hard sinking cap would do it.”

                  How do you make that happen? what sort of plan is required to get that implemented?

                  Here’s a plan.

                  Activists step up the action and continue to build the climate justice and action movements in NZ. Lots of direct action, smart, engaging protest, and awareness raising.

                  Others work at the level of social media and MSM, getting lots of good quality information into the public domain. Tell people the truth and offer them something to do that is proactive and hopeful.

                  More of the general public become alarmed about cc due to extreme weather events and start to make connections between the wellbeing of their own lives (self, family, home, work) and climate change being here now. At this point all levels of activism need to push the notion that it’s not too late.

                  Work with the people that want to change, build action around those people. Sideline and marginalise people who are deniers (of any ilk), who push for the status quo, who promote inaction based on it’s too late, and who troll around cc. Work out effective strategies for this, and then put them in place and focus on the other stuff. Don’t waste time on this, but make it work to the extent that these people aren’t driving the conversation. For people that are still unsure, leave the door open and welcome them in.

                  Eventually there will be a tipping point where enough people understand cc and the need for immediate action. The more pessimistic among us believe that this will only happen once things are collapsing (think lots of floods, brown outs, govt and insurance unable to keep up with infrastructure repair, food shortages at the level of we can’t have tomatoes out of season, all that rather than mad max scenarios). And by that time it’s too late.

                  So stepping up action now is an imperative to get us to that tipping point earlier. Once the public are more on board (don’t know the %, but it’s not going to be everyone, or even necessarily a majority), pressure will be applied to national and local govt as well as business and NGOs. Remember that there will be people wanting action who are in govt (politics and public service), the MSM and business. Lots of people have grandkids.

                  With any luck that will coincide with two things. One is we have a centre-left govt with a strong Green presence, and now people have something competent they can look to for solutions. Two is that the people who have been working on transition for the last decade or two will have enough organisational capacity to go viral within wider parts of society.

                  All of that is possible. There is some luck involved, but there is nothing there that is far out in terms of what NZ society can do. The biggest stumbling block I see is the middle classes still thinking electric cars are going to save the day. I think there are various strategies to change that and IMO that’s where the focus should be. Once those people get on board with transition being urgent and actually a good thing for them personally, I think we will see a lot of change quite fast.

                • Bill …
                  26 April 2017 at 10:36 am

                  The hard sinking cap is technically easy. All that involves is software running on existent flow meters in petrol/diesel holding tanks. (Those tanks are intermediary points of storage for almost all heating and transport fuel)

                  But if you’re then stupid enough to want to hang on to this economic system we have, then forget it.

                  Otherwise, just give the stuff away to the end user.

                  NZ currently subsidises the fossil industry to the tune of some NZ$ 2.5 billion every year (direct and indirect subsidies). That roughly equates to the cost price of all the diesel and petrol used in NZ. Shift the subsidy in the short term so that oil companies get to retain their profits from fossil and don’t get tempted to instantly terminate oil supplies. Nationalise them if need be.

                  By 2035-ish, NZ will then have a fossil free energy sector and we’ll all have had 15 or 20 years to adapt to new and necessary ways of living.

                  I know. Too hard. Too imaginative. Too engaging. Too equitable. Too…not normal.

                  Barreling on into a 3 or 4 degree C future that only idiots think we’ll be able to adapt to is far more sensible.

  8. bugsolutely nz 8
    25 April 2017 at 5:28 pm

    Part of the solution, as I see it, is to look at present behaviors and change those we can to behaviors that minimize the negative impact on the environment. Production of protein is an area where individuals can have an impact by seeking alternatives to the greenhouse gas producing methods used at present. Farming crickets for protein is one example all you have to do is change your preconceptions.

  9. Corokia 9
    25 April 2017 at 6:16 pm

    We’ve got a society where almost all information comes in via social media and (for the older generation TV). Almost all the messages are telling people to consume, fly and drive – because that’s freedom and “you deserve it”.
    Somehow the message HAS to change. But the big money is with the status quo. How do we change the message?

    • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1
      25 April 2017 at 6:29 pm

      Don’t forget that there are many wealthy people struggling with this same problem, who know that we’re all in this together.

      The “us vs. them” on this occasion is between sociopaths (and their right wing thralls) vs. the rest of us, including many world leaders and the vastly overwhelming majority of the global scientific community.

      In the corporate world, Munich Re, for example, has been deadly serious about AGW for years if not decades.

      As for the deniers, I don’t think there’s a solution that includes them. The rest of us have to get on with it and knock them down (legally – which includes the right to self defence) when they get in the way.

      In short, it’s our behaviour, not the message, that has to change. Maybe the monkeywrench has to come out of the mothballs, maybe legal action might be enough. Whatever it is the time for political consensus with sociopaths is over.

      • corokia 9.1.1
        25 April 2017 at 9:04 pm

        Behaviour has to change- yes.
        But the messages to buy, drive, fly, must change. The messages that turn up on facebook. The ads on TV. The billboards. The ads when we are online.
        How else do you think people are going to start thinking about their carbon footprint?
        Nothing (mainstream) in our current lifestyles reminds us that it actually matters.

        • Gosman 9.1.1.1
          25 April 2017 at 10:46 pm

          Restricting freedom of expression is necessary then.

          • Corokia 9.1.1.1.1
            26 April 2017 at 10:26 am

            We have anti drink driving messages for the public good. We don’t allow cigarette ads. Guess that might be restricting freedom of expression to a certain type of troll.

            • Gosman 9.1.1.1.1.1
              26 April 2017 at 11:24 am

              Yes but you aren’t just restricting freedom of expression to goods and services that are deemed unhealthy. You seemingly wish to restrict it for ANY good or service regardless of if using the item has benefits or otherwise.

              • Corokia …
                26 April 2017 at 12:48 pm

                IMO we need more information out there about the importance of reducing CO2 emissions.
                I haven’t mentioned restricting anything.

  10. Philj 10
    26 April 2017 at 6:42 am

    Thank you Bill for taking a stand, and to Charlie. At the Wellington Science March it was a jolly hockey sticks, ‘just exercise your vote intelligently folks’. Excuse me… Really! The bell has been tolling for too long, too many prophets have been ridiculed, This is not going away… We are! And it is becoming increasingly obvious. Sorry, but this is as good as it’s gonna get. The time has come to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation and act intelligently now to minimize the wreakage. The obvious global consequence/solution from our ‘leadership’ is … Conflict?
    R. I. A. B We are no different from Rats In A Barrel. Hell, even Gossy & BM are sounding concerned.