The People’s climate march

Written By: - Date published: 9:19 am, November 22nd, 2015 - 41 comments
Categories: climate change, disaster, Environment, global warming, sustainability - Tags: ,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM-mfEMssy8

Humanity is getting to the business end of the debate about climate change. The science is well and truly settled, the consequences through rising sea levels and adverse weather events and melting icecaps and glaciers is clearly evident and the right wing corporate strategy of confusion and obfuscation is looking desperate. Humanity is on the edge of a crisis and unless action is taken now Houston we will have a problem. There is no planet B.

The Paris climate talks start soon and this is the opportunity for every human who cares about mother earth to make a contribution. Right wing politicians like Stephen Harper need to be removed from office (well done Canada) and we need a new generation of leaders to start talking honestly about the problem, and about the change that each of us need to make with our lifestyles to address that problem.

I blogged earlier about young Green Renee Rose Annan’s attempt to get to Paris so that she could represent young people. Because they have the most to lose I think it is perfectly appropriate for them to be there, hell I am sure they are better placed to make the tough decisions than the current generation of leaders is. I am pleased to say that thanks to many generous donations including those from Standarnistas she is able to to get to Paris.

She has prepared this video:

The event she is talking about is the People’s Climate March. On November 28, 2015, the week before the Paris talks people will be mobilised throughout the world to persuade our leaders that they are expected to make the tough decisions that are urgently required.

The day of the marches in New Zealand is November 28, 2015.  Be sure to be there.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=5qvseaj9_KU

41 comments on “The People’s climate march ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ad 1
    22 November 2015 at 9:35 am

    There are even ecumenical church services afterwards for those so inclined.

  2. The Chairman 2
    22 November 2015 at 9:38 am

    Why is every climate summit described as the last chance for nations to act on climate change?

    • mickysavage 2.1
      22 November 2015 at 9:41 am

      Because we really running out of time. Strictly speaking each summit is not but if inaction continues then the remedial action becomes more extreme.

    • Tracey 2.2
      22 November 2015 at 10:11 am

      Why do so many Leaders think there is plenty of time?

      The questions of our times

      • The Chairman 2.2.1
        22 November 2015 at 10:30 am

        Putin believes it’s a fraud, to restrain the industrial development of several countries, including Russia.

        • Bill 2.2.1.1
          22 November 2015 at 10:41 am

          If annex 1 or OECD countries don’t cut emissions deeply and immediately then there will be no opportunity for developing countries to lay in the basic, and arguably necessary infrastructure that their populations will need.

          In other words, the negotiating stance or inaction of ‘the west’ is putting restraints on the rest of the world.

          All that’s written in the knowledge that ‘the west’ may already have used so much of this century’s global CO2 budget that development elsewhere simply can’t happen now.

          • The Chairman 2.2.1.1.1
            22 November 2015 at 11:12 am

            “If annex 1 or OECD countries don’t cut emissions deeply and immediately then there will be no opportunity for developing countries to lay in the basic, and arguably necessary infrastructure that their populations will need.”

            Why do you assume that?

            And how do you see the west catering to their future infrastructure and development needs?

            • weka 2.2.1.1.1.1
              22 November 2015 at 11:16 am

              “And how do you see the west catering to their future infrastructure and development needs?”

              At the very least transitioning to post-carbon economy, but in reality we need to power down and use our existing infrastructure more wisely. There won’t be any catering to our resource depleting lifestyles, we are going to have to change.

              Chch engineer Susan Krumdiek is worth a listen for how to solve future infrastructure issues while powering down. There’s an interview on RNZ.

              • The Chairman …
                22 November 2015 at 11:27 am

                If the west can transition to cater for future development needs, why can’t developing countries?

                • weka …
                  22 November 2015 at 11:30 am

                  we can’t transition to cater for future development and reduce emissions in any useful way, we have to power down.

                  Even if we could, if the whole world were to take on our standard of living, we have absolutely no show of preventing runaway CC. The ethical thing to do here (for the West) is to drop our standard of living and share our wealth with others, but there is no way the planet can sustain us all having what you and I have. Simple physics.

                  • The Chairman …
                    22 November 2015 at 12:14 pm

                    You initially stated at the least we could transition.

                    And why do we need to power down when there are green energy alternatives such as solar?

                    You seem to be telling me the only way forward is for the western world to lower its standards to that of the developing world, which is far from a viable solution.

                    • b waghorn …
                      22 November 2015 at 12:32 pm

                      More than being a “far from a viable solution” its an unsaleable solution to voters .

                    • The Chairman …
                      22 November 2015 at 12:40 pm

                      @ b waghorn

                      Indeed.

                      However, like trade deals it’s put into international treaties, thus largely removed from the voting public.

                    • weka …
                      22 November 2015 at 1:52 pm

                      “You initially stated at the least we could transition.”

                      I was referring to the West catering to its own needs. It won’t be enough though.

                      “And why do we need to power down when there are green energy alternatives such as solar?”

                      Start by learning about EROEI. Then look at peak oil theorists for explanations of why it’s too late to replace all our oil dependent infrastructure with non-ff. We certainly can’t keep growing (NZ is a finite set of islands, the planet only has so many resources). Windfarms aren’t built with or by solar/wind, they’re built using industrial economies that only exist because of fossil fuels. Research cradle to grave theory as well and consider that it’s not just the power that gets delivered to your house that is supported by fossil fuels, it’s every single aspect of the supply chain going right back to the minerals being mined, and then the machinery used to mine, and then the factories used to make the machinery etc.

                      Then factor in other resource depletion (all the materials needed to keep building more and more wind farms). Google Peak Everything.

                      Basically, if we’d transitioned earlier we could have used the cheap oil to build and replace essential infrastructure. Peak Oil is not about running out of fossil fuels. It’s about the relationship between peak production and the world economies and what happens when it gets to expensive to extract the oil you need to build the wind farms.

                      Now add to all that the CC imperative to stop using FF now, now when PO forces use to. Where are all the factories to build the windfarms going to come from if they can’t be built and run using fossil fuels? If you want to use existing power generation to build the new wind farms, then people have to give up using power elsewhere. Hence powerdown.

                      “You seem to be telling me the only way forward is for the western world to lower its standards to that of the developing world,”

                      I have no idea how far we would have to lower our living standards.

                      “which is far from a viable solution.”

                      Intellectually. Viable according to the laws of physics says otherwise. It doesn’t matter if people don’t like their house burning down. If they don’t have a way to stop it it will happen regardless of whether they consider it viable or not.

                    • weka …
                      22 November 2015 at 1:54 pm

                      “More than being a “far from a viable solution” its an unsaleable solution to voters ”

                      Only up until the point where voters change. Whether that happens via activism or whether it happens only once we’re truly in teh shit is the fate we are all in the balance of.

                      Remember that people once said that no-one would take CC seriously. Most NZers now believe that the govt should be doing more.

                  • Poission …
                    22 November 2015 at 12:29 pm

                    we can’t transition to cater for future development and reduce emissions in any useful way, we have to power down.

                    Reduction in energy consumption (as an enhancement of efficiency) is around 1% per annum (Rosenfelds law)

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenfeld's_law

        • Daniel Cale 2.2.1.2
          22 November 2015 at 10:50 pm

          Putin is on the money.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 2.2.1.2.1
            23 November 2015 at 10:57 am

            How would you know: all the information you’ve linked to shows the opposite 😆

      • Bill 2.2.2
        22 November 2015 at 10:43 am

        Pigs and garden paths.

        • tracey 2.2.2.1
          22 November 2015 at 10:47 am

          😉 It mus be quite hard to swallow for developing countries that the developed countries polluted, cashed up and ran and now want to clamp down on them…. not that some do (like NZ) – you know what I mean

          • weka 2.2.2.1.1
            22 November 2015 at 11:07 am

            I’d be happy for NZ to take a drop in standard of living and share that with other Pacific nations who need support and infrastructure more than we do. We coud do that and still decrease emissions.

            • The Chairman 2.2.2.1.1.1
              22 November 2015 at 11:20 am

              You may have the scope and be happy to see your standard of living drop, but those who are already struggling won’t share the sentiment.

              • weka …
                22 November 2015 at 11:34 am

                Are you talking about NZers who are struggling. Because NZ would drop our standard of living, share our wealth with our Pacific neighbours and reduce poverty in NZ. Poverty in NZ has nothing to do with our resources and wealth, and everything to do with ideology and how we run our economy. Actually, the gap in NZ neatly reflects the CC overdevelopped/underdevelopped probblem. If we were willing to do with less luxury and privilege we’d have no hungry kids here.

                • The Chairman …
                  22 November 2015 at 12:26 pm

                  Yes, I was referring to those struggling locally. Further lowering their standard of living isn’t going to improve poverty. It will exacerbate the negative impacts of it.

                  Resources are generally used to create wealth. Wealth is generally consolidated at the top end, generally resulting in poverty for those at the lower end of the spectrum. Thus, they are all interrelated.

                  • weka …
                    22 November 2015 at 1:56 pm

                    Did you miss the bit where I said that NZ lowering its standard of living doesn’t have to mean worse poverty for those already struggling?

  3. Bill 3
    22 November 2015 at 10:35 am

    Sunday 29th in Dunedin. Don’t know why it’s different – just saying.

  4. Renee Annan 4
    22 November 2015 at 11:35 am

    Thank you so much to all the generous people who made donations!!

  5. Bill 5
    22 November 2015 at 12:46 pm

    The numbers.

    From the IPCC.

    For a 66% chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees C, the total CO2 budget (2011 – 2100) is 1000Gt.

    Between 2011 and now, we have used 150Gt (15% of the century’s budget)

    Between 2015 and 2100 the prediction is for 250Gt of emissions from cement and land use.

    That leaves 600Gt of emissions from energy for the next 85 years.

    Assume (very optimistically) that China, India and all other developing nations peak by 2025 and reduce emissions at between 6 and 8%. That produces 700Gt of emissions…from a global budget of 600Gt.

    So we have to look at a 50/50 chance of limiting to 2 degrees C. The budget is upped to1300Gt.

    1300 minus the total of 700 from a very optimistic scenario for the developing world plus the 150 already used and a further 250 for cement and land use. We in ‘the west’ or OECD then have a budget for this century of 200Gt of emissions from energy.

    The calculations point to a need to cut at around 15% per annum and be virtually free from fossil in ‘the west’ within 15 years – by around 2030.

  6. One Two 6
    22 November 2015 at 2:20 pm

    It is as if the ‘masters of the universe’, do not care

  7. Robert Atack 7
    22 November 2015 at 9:29 pm

    Things that should be done to reduce emissions, if of coarse it wasn’t about 50 years to late )
    Vegetarianism
    No breeding
    No fossil fuel use
    No mining
    90% unemployment
    No military
    No nuclear power stations ……………………
    If we had done that 50 years ago we might have stood a chance.
    The last time October was as hot as it was last month, for a sustained length of time, as in thousands of years ?.. Just to maintain honest perspective, the planet was upwards of +3c warmer and the oceans were 3 to 9 meters higher.
    And ‘they’ are getting +2.5 CH4 readings somewhere up around the Arctic.
    They have discovered ‘pingos’ on the seabed, I’m guessing the seabed tundra is thawing like it is on land, but due to warmer water (4c water is heaver than 0c) wounder what Putin etal will say when we have a tsunami in the Arctic ?
    And these things are lurking all around the world. I read somewhere there are undersea craters off the east coast of the South Island from past extinction periods.
    We are on the cusp of a massive cluster fuck, but alas our so called leaders are all sitting around with their fingers in each others navels, But then what can they do??
    We are a bunch of monkeys, 3-4 meals away from total meltdown,
    Who would want the job? You would have to be a fully paid up flat Earth member, to think this experiment has much longer to run ?

    • Paul 7.1
      22 November 2015 at 9:49 pm

      Fatalism is as dangerous as denial.
      Don’t you want people to turn up?

      • Robert Atack 7.1.1
        23 November 2015 at 7:32 am

        Thinking protests will change anything is just another form of denial.

        ————————————–

        The road to the future leads us smack into the wall. We simply ricochet off the alternatives that destiny offers: a demographic explosion that triggers social chaos and spreads death, nuclear delirium and the quasi-annihilation of the species… Our survival is no more than a question of 25, 50 or perhaps 100 years.

        – Jacques Cousteau (1910-1997) ………………. Bloody fatalist

    • johnm 7.2
      23 November 2015 at 11:27 am

      Hi RA

      ” We are a bunch of monkeys, 3-4 meals away from total meltdown, ”
      Yes the Paris Climate Change Conference: they’ll be under close observation on what they determine and resulting resolutions: Some NZ monkeys will be there too! lol

  8. Chooky 8
    23 November 2015 at 8:49 am

    This is worth watching if you haven’t already….as to why this Climate Change Paris conference is very important

    …said simply and concisely by a top Climate scientist and professor

    ‘Understanding climate change: A conversation with Michael Mann’

    https://www.rt.com/shows/big-picture/321538-global-warming-climate-change/

    “Thom goes over the basics of what global warming is, what’s causing it, and how we can stop it with climate scientist Michael Mann, author of the book “Dire Predictions: Understanding Climate Change.”

  9. One Two 9
    23 November 2015 at 10:26 am

    The ‘solutions’ to be forced onto the planets populace, will ensure those who own and control industry, will continue to thrive at the expense of all else

    Unelected, faceless entities will already have the deals locked in

  10. Elizabeth Farge 10
    24 November 2015 at 1:23 pm

    Is there going to be a Climate Change march in Whangarei? Where and when?