There is no climate emergency according to National

Written By: - Date published: 10:59 am, July 19th, 2019 - 194 comments
Categories: climate change, disaster, Environment, ETS, global warming, national, same old national, science, Simon Bridges - Tags:

Simon Wilson has written a scathing article in the Herald this morning behind the paywall suggesting that for purely political reasons National will frustrate and stymie action on climate change.

From the article:

The past two weeks have in my opinion exposed the biggest climate change problem in this country. Cows? Nope. Cars? Nope. I believe it’s the National Party.

This would be laughable if it wasn’t for the pain it will cause. And not just environmental pain: in my view National’s position on climate change will undermine our economy and damage us socially. Delays now will lead to crisis management later and the people worst affected will include farmers, coastal dwellers and the poor.

As long as National holds to this position, to me it demonstrates it is unfit to govern.

National says it knows we have to combat climate change but undermines every effort to address the issue. Sneers at plans to promote rail. Refuses to endorse the Zero Carbon Bill. Claims it will reintroduce new rights to fossil fuel exploration.

And most in the media realise this.

Things are that bad that Bridges has said that he does not believe there is a climate emergency and is claiming that Labour’s policy is to kill all the cows.

Clearly National is looking over at Australia and thinking the Scomo’s victory was a triumph of denialism and anti intellectualism over reality based policy making and therefore they should do the same.  Any tactic where something as insane as the Adani mine can swing a result will be fair game if you are born to rule.

I previously described the mine and its effect on the Australian election in these terms:

The Adani mine shows everything that is wrong with Australian politics.  Put aside the fact that if completed it would release huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere as well as wreck the Great Barrier reef not to mention fragile local habitats it makes no economic sense whatsoever.  The price of coal is crashing.  No merchant bank would go near the project, it appears that even merchant banks have minimum ethical standards.

Adani claimed originally that 10,000 jobs would be created but this has subsequently been reduced to 1,468.  Spending billions to create so few jobs makes no sense.

It also had open rights to use artesian water, that commodity that will become more and more valuable in Australia.  It has been estimated that the mine would use 4.6 billion litres of water a year.  Consent was rushed through by the LNP three days before the election even though the report relied on had major faults.  From the Conversation thread linked to above:

Details leaked to the ABC showed the review actually found that Adani’s modelling was “not suitable to ensure the outcomes sought by the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Protection Act are met” and that advice for the approval was rushed through in a single afternoon.  

The review found that the modelling was “not sufficiently robust”, over-predicting flows back into the aquifiers it was drawing on and using incorrect measurements for calibration.

The mine owner had also sought a billion dollar government loan to pay for the required rail infrastructure.  Thankfully the Queensland Labor Government has killed this off.

The project should be terminal and put to death. Instead of this it has arguably helped return an incompetent inhumane right wing Government back to power.

But don’t be surprised if we see some similar sort of issue arise in New Zealand.  In fact off sea oil drilling in Taranaki is already serving this function for National.

And the evidence of National’s obstructionism is clear.  On issue after issue relating to climate change National is obstructing and distorting and running attack lines.

I know this is what some consider to be good oppositioning.  But as Wilson says the Government’s proposals are not radical.  For instance the proposed introduction of Agriculture into the ETS is tepid in the extreme although it is a start in the right direction.  And the car fleet changes are very mainstream when compared to what is happening overseas.

But to seek power by attacking policies that now more than ever are urgently overdone overdue is the definition of bad faith politiking.  It is a shame really. This issue is far too important for business as usual politicking to occur.

194 comments on “There is no climate emergency according to National ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Muttonbird 1
    19 July 2019 at 11:18 am

    If we're doing attack ads in the style of the Australian election and recently adopted by the National Party, it should be a doddle to do some similar attacking of National's environmental policy and anti-rail policy.

    Plenty of opportunity to use emotive imagery in those spaces.

    • Jess NZ 1.1
      19 July 2019 at 12:22 pm

      'Kill all the cows' sounds like familar propaganda rhetoric. Oh, that's right. Trump said 'she's going to take away your hamburgers!' In the US, the hamburger is the sacred cow.

      But really, it's the Right that responds to simplistic (and thus wrong) slogans by voting for the sloganeer. The Left fights among ourselves to get to the deepest and most correct version of the truth before supporting a niche side. The Right just wants to win.

      • Muttonbird 1.1.1
        19 July 2019 at 12:24 pm

        It's true the right wing struggle with complex issues. They have a very basic and internal view on life.

      • Robert Guyton 1.1.2
        19 July 2019 at 9:54 pm

        Kill all the cows is a David Farrar perennial. He's used it on several occasions against the Greens especially and usually just before the elections.

        Works his crew up to a mighty froth every time.

  2. Wayne 2
    19 July 2019 at 11:28 am

    Micky,

    National is not going to buy into the Left's characterisation of the issue as a climate emergency. As is evident, all that language has done is to polarise the issue. But as I have previously noted that is exactly the intent of the Left. The whole issue is now being used as a key political wedge issue, to be fair being used in that way by both sides. And a lot of people, including you, want it that way.

    Will either side back down from their political rhetoric? Maybe, maybe not. At the moment it doesn't look promising. Maybe a role for the Parliamentary Commissioner on the environment to get more light into the issue and less heat.

    • Muttonbird 2.1
      19 July 2019 at 11:32 am

      It’s a bit rich of you to complain about 'the Left' polarising issues, straight after defending fake attack ads increasingly used by the National Party.

      • xanthe 2.1.1
        19 July 2019 at 11:46 am

        sorry mutton but "polarisation" has been the primary tool of "the left" and particularly the greens for as long as i have been involved (a long time!) It is a short term electoral ploy that results in long term destruction as i have been at pains to point out to them for years. (and banned from ts on occasion for it!) the fact that the "left" only exists as a parliamentary force because in desperation they have allowed Jacinda to rise above that crap is a direct result of their dependence on polarisation as their primary electoral tool.

        • Muttonbird 2.1.1.1
          19 July 2019 at 11:59 am

          I've no idea what you are talking about.

          Why don't you write a post on the subject, proof read it, and submit it as a guest post here.

          • xanthe 2.1.1.1.1
            19 July 2019 at 12:06 pm

            "I've no idea what you are talking about."

            The use of polarisation as an electoral tool by "the left"

            what were you talking about ?

            • Marcus Morris 2.1.1.1.1.1
              19 July 2019 at 5:17 pm

              Been around for years have you? Obviously post Muldoon who was the most divisive (and lying) politician this country has ever known. Suggest you stick to Matthew Hooten's (not sure how you spell his name and don't really care.) You and Wayne are talking a load of right wing rubbish. Tory poodles.

              • xanthe …
                20 July 2019 at 10:05 am

                So you have nothing to contribute? …. except more polarisation!

                says it all really.

                • Marcus Morris …
                  20 July 2019 at 11:46 am

                  You are the one who raised the issue of polarisation. I read Simon Wilson's Article and agree with every word of it – did you bother. I very much doubt it.

                • Marcus Morris …
                  20 July 2019 at 12:27 pm

                  I forgot to add: And what is it exactly that you have contributed to the debate?

          • bwaghorn 2.1.1.1.2
            19 July 2019 at 12:53 pm

            I had voted labour or green 4 out 5 elections but had to vote top last time un part because of the wedge politics coming from the left towards farming . So yip they do it to.

      • Pat 2.1.2
        19 July 2019 at 11:49 am

        wedge politics is very much on Waynes mind at the moment

    • Rubbish 2.2
      19 July 2019 at 11:35 am

      Good comment.

      It is disturbing to see the attitude of "once we've won the propaganda war we will get on to the deliverables" prevailing.

      It is especially disturbing alongside rabid calls for strong censorship measures, including some which clearly intrude on political speech.

      If Labour and the Greens can't win on votes based on facts and true claims they have no business being in power.

      • mickysavage 2.2.1
        19 July 2019 at 10:21 pm

        So lay out the climate change facts that the Government has got wrong. And your claims of censorship are a bit strong.

    • WeTheBleeple 2.3
      19 July 2019 at 11:36 am

      Y'all are full of shit: You, your party, the stuff you say…

      "to be fair being used in that way by both sides"

      Well, one side is trying to move society forward, the other needs a fucking thumping. May your party be ultimately destroyed – as it rightly deserves many times over.

      • Rubbish 2.3.1
        19 July 2019 at 11:39 am

        How does one "move society forward". The language of progressive politics is inane.

      • Enough is Enough 2.3.2
        19 July 2019 at 11:51 am

        National need a "fucking thumping"?

        Goodness me. How have we got to here?

        And people around here got very upset when Seymour called someone a menace to freedom of speech.

        • WeTheBleeple 2.3.2.1
          19 July 2019 at 3:04 pm

          Just a pack of lying clowns. The whole premise is dishonest – the agenda nefarious – the presentation pathetic.

          These people are scum. They all want to play victim while risking the planet for point scoring. I got no problem with recommending a thumping for such anti-social self-obsessed a-holes.

          They'll fuck the planet and whine the whole time.

          Victims? No fucking way.

          • Enough is Enough 2.3.2.1.1
            19 July 2019 at 3:12 pm

            If this is not hate speech and inciting violence against our political opponents, I have no idea what is….

            • WeTheBleeple 2.3.2.1.1.1
              19 July 2019 at 3:18 pm

              Oh cry me a river. Hate speech? Get over yourself. The planet is imperiled, you are here being upset over me typing opinion.

              Happen to feel quite strongly about people who hide behind sayings like hate speech and play the victim card while damning society for personal gain.

              Scum suckers, and you are one of them too aren't you precious.

        • Robert Guyton 2.3.2.2
          19 July 2019 at 9:52 pm

          Seymour's a politician. WeTheBleeple is not.

    • mickysavage 2.4
      19 July 2019 at 11:36 am

      So are you saying that if we put aside the use of the phrase "climate emergency" and I believe we have one, then National will stop trying to play politics with the individual policy proposals?

      The car fleet one was a classic. It is economically and environmentally a very good idea and very mainstream.

      Are you saying that National would change its mind and come around to supporting this policy if the left was not "shaming" them?

      • Wayne 2.4.1
        19 July 2019 at 12:03 pm

        Well, I think a little less characterisation of the other side as "bad" "deluded", etc would be helpful.

        For instance, the National reaction on the agriculture issue was much less "political" than the car issue.

        Julie Anne Genter is the Minister, not an activist. She would be much better talking to someone in National about how the policy might be improved, rather than going out of her way to be in full political attack mode. There is supposed to be a 4 week consultation (as I understand it). So why doesn't she consult instead of just defending every single aspect of the policy to the hilt. She is supposed to be one of the smart Green MP's, but she sure is keen on green virtue signalling.

        As I have said several times on The Standard, I actually support the basic thrust of the policy. But it can be improved. For instance not applying the levy to tradies and rural contractors utes (as opposed to private owners who can, and should pay).

        • Pat 2.4.1.1
          19 July 2019 at 12:09 pm

          are these the same tradies who will need to increase their charge out rates by 6-10 K p.a. to cover the levy Wayne?

          • Wayne 2.4.1.1.1
            19 July 2019 at 12:49 pm

            It is not as the contractors have an effective alternative vehicle. So the levy won't change behaviour, it will simply add cost. There will be alternatives a few years, but not right yet.

            In my view governments should not add cost just for the sake of it.

            • Pat 2.4.1.1.1.1
              19 July 2019 at 12:58 pm

              so aside from the fact you ignore the mis accounting it is an idealogical position re taxation….and your bathtub shrinks by the day

            • bwaghorn 2.4.1.1.1.2
              19 July 2019 at 12:59 pm

              Tradies and farmers wont even notice the levy.

              In the lead up to the feaild days you can get utes for 20%so a couple of grand will get swallowed up be the dealers competition. add to that most will be trading a vehicle probably worth half the sale price ,they get to claim the gst and depreciation .

              • Pat …
                19 July 2019 at 1:01 pm

                All true (and well understood by those running the line)….but never let the facts ruin a good strategy

              • Enough is Enough …
                19 July 2019 at 1:03 pm

                So if the added cost will not affect their behaviours, why is the government introducing the fee?

                • Andre …
                  19 July 2019 at 1:13 pm

                  In no particular order:

                  • to influence other buyers of those heavily polluting vehicles that actually are influenced
                  • to influence importers and manufacturers to put the electric and hybrid drivetrains they actually have available into these working vehicles so that buyers have a choice
                  • to raise the cash to pay the subsidies for people that will be influenced into buying less-polluting vehicles
                  • Enough is Enough …
                    19 July 2019 at 2:35 pm

                    It was a rhetorical question Andre highlighting the stupidity of someone claiming tradies won't notice a 3k levy. But thanks for pointing out the obvious anyway.

                    Of course they will notice it. That is the intention of it, and it is designed to influence their purchasing habits.

            • Kevin 2.4.1.1.1.3
              19 July 2019 at 4:06 pm

              How many Ford Rangers does Remuera require Wayne?

            • mickysavage 2.4.1.1.1.4
              19 July 2019 at 10:25 pm

              Hey Wayne.

              "In my view governments should not add cost just for the sake of it."

              The problem is that every liter of fuel we burn makes things worse and gas guzzling tradie vehicles make it worse. The policy will make them use more fuel efficient vehicles. Is this not a good thing?

        • WeTheBleeple 2.4.1.2
          19 July 2019 at 3:10 pm

          All you Nats do is political attack. Then you come here and stick up for it like you're not a pack of reprehensible sacks.

          Is sticking up for her party/policies activism is it.

          Then what are you posting here sticking up for your mates nonsense?

          A hypocrite. A hypocrite and a shit spinner.

        • Wayne 2.4.1.3
          19 July 2019 at 5:07 pm

          Micky

          I thought you had minimum standards on this Blog. But I guess not. So long as the violence is only threatened to the Right (even if largely rhetorical) then obviously it is not problem for the moderators.

          • Drowsy M. Kram 2.4.1.3.1
            19 July 2019 at 7:06 pm

            Wayne, are you opposed to the NZ government (preferably parliament) declaring a (state of) climate emergency, and if so then why?

            Do you believe that NZ is not (yet) in the grip of a genuine climate emergency? That the science is still in doubt? That it would be wrong to 'jump the gun'? Better to be reactive than proactive? Keeping your powder dry?

            It would be fantastic if 'we' could just wish away the clear and present danger the dramatic increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases represents, and continue to focus instead on the vastly more important game of making as much money as we can, while we can.

            When would be the optimum time for the government to declare a climate emergency? In five years time; in twenty years; never? Is there a particular quantum of climate-related costs that would get the wealth addicts and climate scientists 'pulling' in the same direction?

            But Klein Salamon thinks critiques like this are missing the larger point—the push for emergency declarations is just one tactic among many to encourage a massive societal shift in thinking. “We’re talking about the deaths of billions of people and the collapse of civilization, we need to pull every lever,” she said.

            https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/7xgyxy/what-declaring-a-climate-emergency-in-the-us-would-actually-do

            http://theconversation.com/sydney-declares-a-climate-emergency-what-does-that-mean-in-practice-119387

            https://wellington.govt.nz/your-council/news/2019/06/climate-emergency

            https://climateemergencydeclaration.org/

            • Wayne 2.4.1.3.1.1
              20 July 2019 at 9:17 am

              No, I don't think Parliament should declare a "climate emergency". In any event, I imagine at the moment there is not a majority for that, in that NZF would not agree. But even if NZF did, what would it mean, especially when National opposes. Just another ideological marker in the political contest.

              It is much better to have the sort of approach that currently exists. James Shaw seems to be handling the dialogue and consensus in a very constructive way. The agriculture agreement was a particularly impressive example of consensus. Sure, some parties will be ahead of others in that process, or have different solutions, but that can exist under a broad framework.

              New Zealand already has agreement on the broad goal, which is greenhouse gas neutral by 2050. That is (only) 30 years away, and will be tough enough to achieve. Maybe that needs proper interim goals for 2030 and 2040, to give people something more tangible in a time frame they can easily relate to. And say 3 key policies for each goal. Like for instance no more imports of ICE cars after 2030. Only EV's plugin hybrids for other emission free technologies (hydrogen).

              If we could get a national consensus on these things, that would be much more constructive than having a divisive political fight over a "climate emergency". Which in in any event is just a slogan. It is the policy that counts.

              It is quite different to "nuclear free" or "GE free", where the slogan is the policy. Nuclear free is contained in one relatively short act of parliament.

              In contrast dealing with climate change requires a huge host of detailed policy initiatives.

              • Drowsy M. Kram …
                20 July 2019 at 11:01 am

                IMHO it's unwise to believe that political ‘deals’ are the only, or even the best method for "dealing with climate change". Responses you cling to are the equivalent of 'rearranging deckchairs', although to be fair all feasible responses are in that category.

                The time to recognise the consequences of the unprecedented rate of increase in (anthropogenic) eCO2 and declare a global emegency was decades ago. And the political resistance to declaring an emergency even now (with the benefit of hindsight) goes hand-in-glove with a consistent lack of political will and vision – still wilfully blind.

                Declared or not, humans face a climate and environmental emergencies of their own making. Keep calm and carry on – 11 billion ho!

          • riffer 2.4.1.3.2
            19 July 2019 at 7:32 pm

            I may have been reading it wrong, but I'd read the reference to "need a thumping" as talking about getting a hiding in the next election. Having said that, it doesn't read well, so you have a point. There's no room for advocating violence on any political blogs. If that was the intent, it was out of line.

          • John Clover 2.4.1.3.3
            21 July 2019 at 5:02 pm

            Wayne … what 'Wethebleepie", writes , their approach and language are regretable but as a long time TS reader I think understandable that a few think like them here. Best ignored rather than encouraged I think.

            I am very glad that life has treated me well and I have never had a 'bad boss'*so I am more tolerant of some of the 'right' views. So in ignoring those folk I have considerable sympathy for them and glad I have not experienced life as they seem to have.

            * or parential guidance pushing me that way.

          • greywarshark 2.4.1.3.4
            1 August 2019 at 6:24 pm

            I think much of the anger expressed here comes under robust debate.

            All the time knowing that the RW supports a system that treats poor people very cruelly, and wealthy people in a way that reduces them to tears because they for instance, can't manage on $200,000 or the like.

      • New view 2.4.2
        19 July 2019 at 4:53 pm

        If NZ was a car you might say it won’t pass a WOF. It hasn’t got a broken brake cable in my opinion, just needs maintenance to pass a warrant. That’s not an emergency to me. If your back door opens onto the beach you may say there’s an emergency but if you live anywhere else you may not. It is a polarising statement to me but to others it’s the only way to describe the situation. Labour are enjoying Nationals reaction. Certainly shows the difference between the two parties, or does it. This Government might say all the right things but by the time they actually do anything we would have all drowned anyway. The two parties aren’t so different. Half the country hates one lot and the other half hate the other. This forum always seems to focus on the opposition which I find strange. If we really want the country to go ahead why doesn’t everyone here keep this Government up to the task instead. This Government can do what it wants if Winston let’s it, so why worry about National. They’re no threat are they.

        • In Vino 2.4.2.1
          19 July 2019 at 5:21 pm

          So you see only the possible rise of sea levels as a threat?

          Have you any conception of the other dangers we face, according to most climate scientists? The car analogy is probably less relevant than the Titanic one. The iceberg has been sighted just off the bow, but rather than try to turn the ship, many of the right-wing officers want to deny that the berg is there.

          • New view 2.4.2.1.1
            19 July 2019 at 5:50 pm

            No, I can see plenty of threats but they are not threatening us directly at the moment. So what conception am I missing that we are suffering at present that makes us declare an emergency. I’m not saying we shouldn’t plan for the future with out delay. I just feel an emergency is something we are suffering at this moment and we shouldn’t confuse the two. It’s a polarising subject. To you I’m a Denyer to me I’m not.

            • In Vino 2.4.2.1.1.1
              19 July 2019 at 6:09 pm

              Denier is spelt with an i.

              You won't believe the iceberg is there until you see it rip a big hole in the bow, will you?

              • New view …
                19 July 2019 at 7:00 pm

                Thanks for the spelling. Not my strength at all. But I’m not silly either. I Watch the news and more duh. It’s perception that we’re discussing here and I’m entitled to my Point of view. Doesn’t mean I won’t see an iceberg until I bump into it. They’ve floated past our South Island before. Your definition of an emergency must cover a dry year in Hawke’s Bay, a turbulent landing in Wellington and the next spring tide. My definition is when emergency services are required. Floods fires earthquakes ect. The rest are threats. Big threats but threats. I most likely know more about the weather than you do.

                • Pat …
                  19 July 2019 at 7:47 pm

                  climate is not weather…though they are related

                • In Vino …
                  19 July 2019 at 8:01 pm

                  It is also possible you don't: as a keen sailor I have for years been desperate to find the best forecasts, and know how they are based. That has interested me in jet streams, El Niño, La Niña, cycles, etc.

                  It seems to me that you choose to deliberately blinker your own vision to suit what you want to believe.

                  • New view …
                    19 July 2019 at 8:52 pm

                    Can’t say I’m a good sailor although I have been boating. But I’m a retired farmer so trying to guess the weather ahead of time has been a lifetime occupation, and have also held a private pilots license some years ago so did sit some met exams at the time and have always been observant of weather patterns so maybe we shouldn’t waste time matching credentials. I stand by what I have said. Doesn’t mean I’m right or wrong and that applies to you. Why is it so hard to imagine a different opinion isn’t worth considering.

                • Robert Guyton …
                  19 July 2019 at 8:09 pm

                  New view; you say,

                  "My definition is when emergency services are required".

                  This is where your view is lacking depth, I believe.

                  Imagine if the conditions that led up to today's gas explosion in Christchurch had been detected early; that is, someone noticed the smell of gas hours before the explosion happened. Imagine now that person saying, "There's no explosion yet, therefore, no emergency and instead went off to a cafe for a flat white and a bagel, waiting for the explosion so they could call emergency services. You'd no doubt be appalled. Some emergencies take time to build. Climate change is elsewhere described as "The Long Emergency" for a good reason; the "explosions" are yet to come but they will come soon enough, many believe, hence the need for emergency action NOW, to try to prevent catastrophic damage LATER. From the Christchurch gas analogy, you might see that it would be fair to ask if those who are saying "there's no emergency, don't frighten the neighbours by such talk", might like to explain to the people living in the demolished Christchurch house and to those living nearby, why earlier on, there was no need to cry EMERGENCY!!!.

                  • Drowsy M. Kram …
                    19 July 2019 at 8:18 pm

                    yes Don't frighten the punters – prime location & 'handyman's dream'!

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    19 July 2019 at 8:53 pm

                    Some people operate a remarkably self-serving definition of "emergency." One can only hope not to have them as neighbours.

                  • Poission …
                    19 July 2019 at 8:56 pm

                    You still do not understand that the argument (climate emergency) is rhetoric, and dangerous.

                    Mike Hume examined the problem for CE and found significant dangers.

                    But talk of climate emergencies is dangerous talk.

                    It is reminiscent of James Lovelock’s call a few years ago in his book ‘The Vanishing Face of Gaia’ for the suspension of democracy while, in effect, a war is fought against climate change. For Lovelock, surviving climate change “may require, as in war, the suspension of democratic government for the duration of the survival emergency” (p.95). Others before him have made similar claims.

                    For those who take the rhetoric of climate change discourse literally there is of course a certain logic to such desperate measures. By putting 1.5C as a climate target into political play the Paris Agreement has painted the world into a dangerous corner, a corner which this IPCC SR15 Report has squeezed even further. If one really believes the world will fall off a cliff-edge at 1.5C warming or that a ‘Hothouse Earth’ is triggered by 2C, then extreme and dangerous remedies will be unleashed.

                    The literalism of ‘the cliff-edge’, of ‘10 more years’ and of the ‘runaway hothouse’ breeds desperate measures. One such measure is solar climate engineering. Johan Rockström, a co-author of the Hothouse Earth study, recently said that the IPCC SR15 Report was likely to stimulate discussion of these extreme emergency measures: “I think this will raise solar radiation management to the highest political level. We currently have no framework for this,” he said. “I’m very scared of this technology, but we need to turn every stone now.”

                    These are dangerous thoughts from someone as influential as Rockström.

                    But as we argued a few years ago, declaring a climate emergency invokes a state of exception that carries many inherent risks: the suspension of normal governance, the use of coercive rhetoric, calls for ‘desperate measures’, shallow thinking and deliberation, and even militarization. To declare an emergency becomes an act of high moral and political significance, as it replaces the framework of ordinary politics with one of extraordinary politics.

                    https://mikehulme.org/against-climate-emergency/

                    • Rubbish …
                      19 July 2019 at 8:59 pm

                      Thanks for the links. Roundly agree. I’m less concerned with the science, which I still don’t fully understand, and more with the rhetoric also.

                    • Pat …
                      19 July 2019 at 9:06 pm

                      the risks to the (few) democracies in the world is real, but those risks exist outside of the climate emergency in any case…indeed id suggest there is greater immediate threat to democracy through inequality

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      19 July 2019 at 9:44 pm

                      "

                      …

                      19 July 2019 at 8:56 pm

                      "You still do not understand that the argument (climate emergency) is rhetoric, and dangerous."

                      The argument (climate emergency) is rhetoric?

                      Your opposing argument is somehow, not?

                      The argument (climate change) is dangerous?

                      Your opposing argument is somehow, not??

                      Please explain.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      19 July 2019 at 9:50 pm

                      "But as we argued a few years ago, declaring a climate emergency invokes a state of exception that carries many inherent risks: the suspension of normal governance, the use of coercive rhetoric, calls for ‘desperate measures’, shallow thinking and deliberation, and even militarization. To declare an emergency becomes an act of high moral and political significance, as it replaces the framework of ordinary politics with one of extraordinary politics."

                      Talk about alarmist rhetoric! You've got a bad case of conspiracy nuttiness there, Poisson.

                    • Poission …
                      19 July 2019 at 11:57 pm

                      At some point bob you need to start reading .,Humes arguments are based on the scientific structure ie testing of hypothesis.

                      Huxley on David Hume.

                      All science starts with hypotheses—in other words, with assumptions that are unproved, while they may be, and often are, erroneous; but which are better than nothing to the seeker after order in the maze of phenomena. And the historical progress of every science depends on the criticism of hypotheses—on the gradual stripping off, that is, of their untrue or superfluous parts—until there remains only that exact verbal expression of as much as we know of the fact, and no more, which constitutes a perfect scientific theory.

                      MH found that the arguments for CE statement as a dangerous response or as Huxley put it.

                      But further, it is the business of criticism not only to keep watch over the vagaries of philosophy, but to do the duty of police in the whole world of thought. Wherever it espies sophistry or superstition they are to be bidden to stand; nay, they are to be followed to their very dens and there apprehended and exterminated, as Othello smothered Desdemona, "else she'll betray more men.

                      The argument is not about CC it is about rhetorical arguments and value judgements which should not be part of the scientific debate.

                    • greywarshark …
                      1 August 2019 at 6:33 pm

                      Poission

                      You appear to believe that climate change is a real threat and we have to act. Talking about suspension of democracy because it is being treated like a war, well that may happen.

                      There are risks either way. When you live in a country built on bovine products, and protected from attack by other countries, it seems that people become complacent. Note Britain is quite light-hearted about future threats – nobody invaded them, and everyone came to their rescue. Similarly in NZ I think, and we need this shake-up of climate emergency to get us off our butts. Otherwise, how long, Lord, how long would we wai?. We had to be brave and have done so. Saying now we should not have is wishful thinking and just muddies the pond. You are trying to be a guru at an inappropriate time.

                  • New view …
                    19 July 2019 at 9:19 pm

                    You lost me a bit there RG. The ChCh people need to track down the gas installation people. To me it’s more the cry wolf thing. You call it an emergency, but when Jo Blow can’t see a problem today he won’t understand what’s immediate and what’s not. Technically you may be right but day to day most peoples idea of global warming is most likely when the air conditioning stops working. I’m not saying we haven’t a problem I don’t believe the emergency wording is helpful in convincing everyone. If you declare an emergency a lot of people will expect something bad to affect their life in the next say twelve months. I doubt we’ll agree on anything but maybe you’ll get the idea that we all don’t think the same and that doesn’t mean we’re stupid. The sun will come up tomorrow. Maybe not in twenty years. 🤔

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      19 July 2019 at 9:40 pm

                      " If you declare an emergency a lot of people will expect something bad to affect their life in the next say twelve months."

                      12 months, New view? You surprise me with that; most opponents to declaring a climate emergency demand that it refers to something more immediate; now, or at least before the next ad break. So perhaps, with your relatively long-term view, you can see why those who do expect serious issues within the next ten years, nine years, eight years, 5 years, are not so very different from yourself. Jo Blow, whom you cite, isn't the best-informed fellow to be relied upon for a realistic assessment of climate change; perhaps it would be wiser to ask those who study the problem professionally, just as you'd go to a doctor for a diagnosis for an illness, rather than ask ol' Jo Blow.

                    • New view []
                      19 July 2019 at 10:17 pm

                      True. But also true is that it’s all the Jo blows that might choose to vote that will determine the Government that has to fight this battle. Declaring an emergency most likely won’t do it but good policies might. I fear for your sanity RG. 😩

              • John Clover …
                21 July 2019 at 5:12 pm

                If New Zealand is like a ship designed properly there will be proper full height bulkheads so the damage is serious but not life or ship theatening.

                I think National could achieve that, but that is despite the efforts of the greenies to sink the ship 🙂

    • woodart 2.5
      19 July 2019 at 11:43 am

      so wayne, when your beach front property washes away, no emergency to fix it ,I presume. ? its interesting that the "private property rights" people who live in places like raumati sth and haumoana beach, are rapidly changing their tunes, and calling it an emergency. so, unless you arent directly affected, you dont give a shit ? typical right wing philosophy..

      • Wayne 2.5.1
        19 July 2019 at 12:54 pm

        Yes, I live in Bayswater and my house is on the waterfront, about 15 meters above the water. There is a seawall at the bottom of the garden. It is over a meter above the water, even on the highest spring tide. In twenty years I have not seen any discernible change in the water level.

        If there is sea level rise the Devonport causeway will need raising. Even a 0.5 meter increase will probably inundate Waitemata golf course.

        • woodart 2.5.1.1
          19 July 2019 at 1:52 pm

          see, thats the thing wayne. because you dont think deeply enough about things, you can only think about your' own property. its the tides in exposed seashore that are being deeply effected by climate change. maybe you need to get out of batswater, sorry bayswater , and see the world. rapahoe(?) beach is an eye (and mind!) opener.

          • Wayne 2.5.1.1.1
            19 July 2019 at 2:33 pm

            I do read widely on the issue. For instance I buy New Scientist each week, plus do other reading. I appreciate the risk of runaway effects.

            We are only 30 years from 2050, when the 2017 National Climate Assessment says 34 cm sea level rise by then (the high range). That is slightly over 1 cm per year. I should therefore see a 12 cm increase by 2030 (assuming an even increase, which it may not be).

            Based on the last 20 years of direct observation of the sea level on my sea wall, that seems improbable.

            • jingyang 2.5.1.1.1.1
              20 July 2019 at 12:47 am

              " Based on the last 20 years of direct observation of the sea level on my sea wall, that seems improbable. "

              There, in a nutshell, you just expose the error in your thinking re: Climate Change" – extrapolating from the past to decide that the future will be same … I rather think you have missed the point entirely…

              • greywarshark …
                1 August 2019 at 6:38 pm

                A lot of NZs have not mentally embraced the end of the 20th century. Young lost in technology, and television, and the old lost in the numerous channels of Sky etc. and television, or cruises. A cruisy life at the expense of the poverty and lack of hope for the future of the young.

            • John Clover 2.5.1.1.1.2
              21 July 2019 at 5:22 pm

              The trouble with that Wayne is that if the warming causes a large chunk of ice to break off and displace water at either pole the water will rise pretty quickly. I think I am also 9<20 metres above spring high tide and not particularly warried but think it could happen, More about the low land connecting me to the rest of NZ with a very high and steep hill behind me blocking me from that access. [North-west side of Otago Harbour 🙁 ]

    • Robert Guyton 2.6
      19 July 2019 at 9:58 pm

      "National is not going to buy into the Left's characterisation of the issue as a climate emergency"

      True. They won't. Don't bother with them then, if their position is cast in concrete. Rally non-National politicians and supporters and do what needs to be done, for the sake of all.

      Denial of an emergency doesn't mean there is no emergency. If you see an emergency situation, you sometimes have to ignore those who can't see it and push them aside in order to save lives.

      • Rubbish 2.6.1
        19 July 2019 at 11:02 pm

        SuperRobert to the rescue!

        I've changed my handle to Chickin' Little in your honour.

        Thank you for engaging, I appreciate your sincerity and that you are not merely concerned with party politics.

        [Please stick to your handle. If you like to play silly buggers I know just the place – Incognito]

    • vto 2.7
      20 July 2019 at 5:23 am

      Wayne, your musings are those of a stuck-in-the-mud conservative.

      You will recognise at least that climate change is a new kid on the block in terms of threat to society and required action. It isn't something we have faced before.

      In times like this conservatives retreat, liberals step forward and confront.

      Best you and your ilk stay out of it – as history consistently shows. Leave the real work to the left Wayne, they are the ones that always deal with these things, never conservatives (never ever the National Party never ever in our history). Then once changed the useless conservatives will follow along, as they always do.

      Go back to sleep Wayne, climate change is too much for you and your lot.

  3. johnm 3
    19 July 2019 at 11:35 am

    The Arctic Ocean is heating up faster than the rest of the Earth, scientists say. Temperatures over parts of it will increase by as much as 54 degrees Fahrenheit this month, in comparison to previous decades. Now, scientists who write for the Arctic News Blog warn humans could become extinct by 2026 if climate initiatives are ignored across the globe. RT America’s Brigida Santos has more.

    paxwallacejazz

    paxwallacejazz 1 year ago (edited)

    We humans can't wrap our heads around the concept of exponential. There are currently at least 47 self reinforcing feedback loops already triggered and baked into the cake whose cumulative effect will be exponential in nature. The kicker predicted to occur soon by the International Arctic Research Centre and their lead Scientist Natalia Sharakova is Methane emissions due to melting permafrost is just icing on the cake. But the added methane should supercharge the whole process. We are under the gross misconception that we are a good species going somewhere important and that at the last minute we will correct our errors and God will smile on us. It is delusion.

    • Jess NZ 3.1
      19 July 2019 at 12:08 pm

      +10000000

    • Rubbish 3.2
      19 July 2019 at 5:36 pm

      9 years? Impossible. Paul Ehrlich predicted that it would be times up in 1980. You and everyone you know has been dead for 39 years, kid. Get over it.

  4. Rubbish 4
    19 July 2019 at 11:38 am

    Are the claims in this video true or false?

      • Rubbish 4.1.1
        19 July 2019 at 11:46 am

        "No" meaning true or false?

        • dv 4.1.1.1
          19 July 2019 at 11:48 am

          Yes.

          • xanthe 4.1.1.1.1
            19 July 2019 at 11:52 am

            smiley

            • Rubbish 4.1.1.1.1.1
              19 July 2019 at 11:58 am

              Refusal to engage on very legitimate concerns and questions and perhaps even refusal to have an ideologically impure thought.

              • dv …
                19 July 2019 at 12:14 pm

                Nope saw your efforts yesterday, and don't want to waste time with rubbish.

                • Grey Area …
                  19 July 2019 at 1:16 pm

                  +1

                • Rubbish …
                  19 July 2019 at 5:38 pm

                  My efforts yesterday asking if you or your friend knew who had created, and who was funding, the multi-million dollar PR campaign called Extinction Rebellion?

                  • Robert Guyton …
                    19 July 2019 at 10:00 pm

                    Rubbish; do you believe there's a major extinction event occurring globally at this time? They're calling it the 6th. Do you believe that's not true?

                    • Rubbish …
                      19 July 2019 at 10:14 pm

                      Yes I agree there is a mass extinction event. But right now I believe that it has more to do with massive deforestation and other habitat loss, overfishing, and the otherwise over-ranging of the maker ape.

                      A country like New Zealand can and is addressing these problems. We don't need the UN here to destabalize our political process through various proxies, we need to encourage engagement with our political process. I think we've seen a lot of progress in this country and will continue to see more of it.

                      Other countries without our strong Westminister system of governance and common law system struggle to handle these problems. We should all assist those godforsaken (!ha) places without allowing the UN and others to completely ruin them in the process. Down with UN imperialism, I say.

                      Do I think CO2 is an environmental poison? No. Climate Change advocates state C02 is higher than it has been in 3 million years. That's not such a long time. Also, I wasn't aware that dinosaurs had factories. And I am given to understand that the world was brimming with bio-diverse life 3 million years ago when C02 levels were as high as they are now (actually, higher).

                      I see the need for international cooperation, absolutely, but I don’t think it should be necessary for us to all accept a whole lot of lies and propaganda without examination or challenge or to cede sovereignty to international bodies to help Haiti etc.

                      We certainly don’t need to hand back decision-making power to the Prince of Wales in any way, shape or form.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      19 July 2019 at 10:28 pm

                      We don't need the UN here to destabalize our political process through various proxies…

                      Phew, good job that isn't happening, then.

                      Do I think CO2 is an environmental poison? No.

                      Neither does anyone else. Can it make the environment less conducive to the human societies that have developed over the last few thousand years? Fuck yes. That's the point.

                      Climate Change advocates state C02 is higher than it has been in 3 million years. That's not such a long time.

                      In geological terms, no. However, in terms of human civilisation having existed for around 5000 years, it's a fucking long time.

                      And I am given to understand that the world was brimming with bio-diverse life 3 million years ago when C02 levels were as high as they are now (actually, higher).

                      Yep. As it will be after we're gone. The issue here isn't life on Earth, it's human societies as they're currently constituted and the mass death and disruption that would result from the environment becoming slightly less conducive to current arrangements. The life forms existing 3 million years from now probably won't know about and certainly won't care about what happens to Homo Sapiens over the next thousand years, but we sure as shit should care about it.

                    • Rubbish …
                      19 July 2019 at 11:07 pm

                      Carbon credits won't do anything. We need to advocate for biodiversity, protected marine areas and so forth. The people who made up carbon credits make up money all the time.

                      [Stubborn, are we? Please stick to your handle. Last warning – Incognito]

                    • Incognito []
                      19 July 2019 at 11:11 pm

                      See my Moderation note @ 11:07 PM.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      20 July 2019 at 8:33 am

                      Rubbish said:

                      "Yes I agree there is a mass extinction event. But right now I believe that it has more to do with massive deforestation and other habitat loss, overfishing, and the otherwise over-ranging of the maker ape."

                      The Extinction Rebellion people agree with you. One aspect of "over-ranging of the maker ape" is the production of greenhouse gases. That's the aspect we're focussed on here. The other issues you describe have been the focus of a protracted campaign by "greenies" everywhere; we know about those threats and devote ourselves (many of us) to countering them. You seem to be very suspicious of the focus on greenhouse gases. Your explanations sound a little wacky (it's a conspiracy!) but that's fine; there's room for way-out speculation and chicken-little-ing on a discussion forum like this.

                    • Incognito []
                      20 July 2019 at 10:44 am

                      In my view, that commenter is going way past ‘speculation’ and stated “[y]ou’ve all been had” but has not been forthcoming with supportive material or answering questions about that in a clear and direct manner. Therefore, they are now in Auto-Moderation until midnight and will be banned unless they back up their unsubstantiated claims. Their responses so far have been telling but I’ve given them the benefit of doubt and the opportunity to clarify their comments. As Lynn suggested, if I think it is close (enough) to the ‘border’, take action. CC and CE are too serious and too complex to allow commenters here to blow more smoke into our eyes. People have to back up their claims or make it abundantly clear they are speculating, making up shit, and/or shit stirring when talking about CC and CE.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      20 July 2019 at 10:56 am

                      Good call, Incognito. Veiled claims and slights are a waste of our time and energy and “that commenter” scatters them about like rubbish on a West Coast beach.

    • ianmac 4.2
      19 July 2019 at 1:48 pm

      "Rubbish. Would like tea or coffee?"

      "Yes please."

  5. Jess NZ 5
    19 July 2019 at 11:41 am

    20 minute video but worth it…Economy vs. Ecology

    National's base depends on pushing economy over ecology. The obvious point that you can’t eat money continues to evade them.



  6. Rubbish 6
    19 July 2019 at 11:48 am

    Can anyone tell me:

    1) What are Extinction Rebellion's policy positions?

    2) Who started Extinction Rebellion?

    3) Who is funding Extinction Rebellion?

    4) Who provides Extinction Rebellion with its logistical and organizational infrastructure?

    • Grey Area 6.1
      19 July 2019 at 1:13 pm

      Perhaps you could do your own heavy lifting. The UK and NZ XR websites are easy to find as a start.

      • Rubbish 6.1.1
        19 July 2019 at 5:27 pm

        Read them and much else besides, Grayzone.

        I was interested in whether those who believe that there is a climate emergency have done the same, or whether it is all a matter of faith.

        • solkta 6.1.1.1
          19 July 2019 at 5:33 pm

          The science, it is the science the people read.

          • Rubbish 6.1.1.1.1
            19 July 2019 at 5:44 pm

            Solkta,

            Let's say there is a social or environmental problem that has political ramifications. For ease's sake, let's say its climate change.

            Now let's say the Hungarians mount a massive PR campaign to push the idea that only National can solve climate change, and that if Labour remains in power we will all die.

            Wouldn't there be still many troubling questions to be answered, as a matter of public interest, whether or not climate change was real, and whether or not climate change was such a dire problem that a state of emergency or even martial law had to be declared?

            • solkta 6.1.1.1.1.1
              19 July 2019 at 5:45 pm

              The science, it is the science the people read. The science it comes from scientists.

            • Psycho Milt 6.1.1.1.1.2
              19 July 2019 at 6:41 pm

              Now let's say the Hungarians mount a massive PR campaign to push the idea that only National can solve climate change, and that if Labour remains in power we will all die.

              Er, what? Why would we say that? Still, suppose we did, for shits and giggles: for a start, most people would be scratching their heads over the idea that National, the party of actively opposing any means of mitigating climate change, was going to save us from climate change. Next, they'd be scratching their heads over the idea that we're all going to die. Climate change will kill a lot of people, but it would take some pretty extreme outlier scenario to kill everyone. (That does prompt a question, though: how many people dying due to climate change is an acceptable number to the National Party?)

              It feels like your nonsensical analogy implies that Extinction Rebellion is an astroturf organisation run by a foreign government (Hungarians, in your analogy). Do you have some reason to believe it might be astroturfing, or is that just wishful thinking on your part?

              • Rubbish …
                19 July 2019 at 7:38 pm

                You might just be on to something….

              • solkta …
                19 July 2019 at 7:42 pm

                The Chinese and Margaret Thatcher. Trump said it so it must be true.

              • Rubbish …
                19 July 2019 at 8:08 pm

                And I have reason to believe that emergency climate change rhetoric is wishful thinking AND astroturfing.

                • solkta …
                  19 July 2019 at 8:10 pm

                  because Trump said?

                • Psycho Milt …
                  19 July 2019 at 8:47 pm

                  You're just unable to share those reasons with us because…?

                  • Rubbish …
                    19 July 2019 at 9:54 pm

                    I claim natural birth.
                    I admit fortune from a distant Hill.
                    I call, homely, from Benjamin's hearth:
                    Broadway, Mountain View, Washington.

                    Who am I?

                    [Please answer the question directly and provide clear and direct evidence to support your reasoning “to believe that emergency climate change rhetoric is wishful thinking AND astroturfing”. The day before, you stated “[y]ou’ve all been had”, which doesn’t leave any room for doubt, but refused to come forward with information to substantiate that when asked. If you are genuine, you will front up, and why wouldn’t you? If you are playing games, and you are in fact a CC denier, I will send you to Las Vegas to try your luck over there. You’ve got until midnight – Incognito]

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      19 July 2019 at 10:02 pm

                      You are Rubbish. According to the name accompanying each of your comments.

                    • Psycho Milt …
                      19 July 2019 at 10:07 pm

                      So, it could be because Robert's explanation, or it could be because we don't speak gibberish. Either seems plausible.

                    • Incognito …
                      20 July 2019 at 1:18 am

                      See my Moderation note @ 9:54 PM.

                    • Rubbish …
                      20 July 2019 at 1:40 am

                      Dude, Incognito, that's a very fucking weird comment. It's threatening and creepy!

                      I kind of like it, how quietly crazed and aggressive it is.

                      [Have it your way then. I’m putting you in Auto-Moderation until you comply with my Moderation note @ 9:54 PM and show you’re made of the right stuff or you turn into a pumpkin at midnight – Incognito]

                    • Incognito []
                      20 July 2019 at 2:07 am

                      See my Moderation note @ 1:40 AM.

                    • Rubbish …
                      20 July 2019 at 1:42 am

                      You sound like a preacher who is rebuking me for an offense against scripture, an offense against God and religion.

                    • Rubbish …
                      20 July 2019 at 1:45 pm

                      Dear Incongnito, Robert and co.,

                      What haven't I been clear on? I am happy for you to interrogate me if be your will. lay out what I need to be more specific about, and what you considered to be telling clues.

                      But First, Incognito: you objected to my comment "you've been had".

                      My comment referred to Extinction Rebellion's claims to be a people-led, grass roots movement that was completely spontanious. In fact, it was well-planned and well-funded and created by some of the UK's top Public Relations executives in the philanthropic venture capital sector in the UK.

                      I implore you to peer behind the vale awhile, my fellows, and examine what this "movements" funders might want in return lest the whole enterprise be sullied and the cup of goodwill taken up by so many goodhearted citizens poisoned.

                      Now for my questions:
                      Why the secrecy, the deflection? Do you consider that if the citizens knew of these deceptions they might vote against Labour’s advanced guard’s wishes, albeit democratically?

                      Is the left getting to the point where it is willing to rely on PR propaganda and foreign-funded interference in order to keep its grip on power? What next, spies ducking in and out of every private meeting like secret emissaries from the King of Jordan, performing clandestine hit jobs on private citizens?

                      [Sorry for the wait. It is not your comment “you’ve been had” and other comments others and I objected to but the fact that you don’t back up your comments with facts when specifically asked. You still haven’t provided one piece of evidence for all your negative allegations about Extinction Rebellion and CE for that matter. You make very strong statements such as “[a]nd I have reason to believe that emergency climate change rhetoric is wishful thinking AND astroturfing” that warrant supportive evidence. If they are just your opinions, you need to make that clear. However, you deliberately create the suggestion that you know more but you’re not forthcoming with the info. You implore [us] “to peer behind the vale awhile” but give no guide or direction. In short, it all looks like you’re making up shit. Not answering these questions is the problem for which you will be banned, it seems.

                      Furthermore, you need to explain “the official party line” in the context of alleged censorship.

                      You ask “Why the secrecy, the deflection?”. Look in the mirror.

                      You allege a connection between unsubstantiated “deceptions” and “Labour’s advanced guard’s wishes”. Your imagination is boundless, it seems.

                      The last paragraph reads like RWNJ BS and I’m not even going to attempt to try to unpack it.

                      The pattern of your comments have become crystal clear, thanks to the handy Auto-Moderation tool and a few other tools that are available on this site.

                      As you can see, I have now approved this “very good answer” of yours so that everybody can read it as well as this Moderation note.

                      It is now time for you to put up or shut up and the this ‘discussion’ has gone on for far too long. Less than six hours to go so make it work for you – Incognito]

                      [The midnight deadline has passed and you have failed to comply with the Moderator’s request to substantiate your allegations about Extinction Rebellion, amongst others, and despite numerous attempts to explain the situation to you. Banned for one year – Incognito]

                    • Incognito []
                      20 July 2019 at 6:29 pm

                      See my Moderation note @ 1:45 PM.

                    • Incognito []
                      21 July 2019 at 12:18 am

                      See my final Moderation note @ 1:45 PM.

                    • Rubbish …
                      20 July 2019 at 2:50 pm

                      I have tried to address your questions multiple times! You are not letting my answers go through moderation.

                      Why are you concerned about open and honest dialogue on these issues?

                      [What don’t you understand about Auto-Moderation? Moderators can’t be watching the site every second; they have lives and other commitments and that’s why they invented Auto-Moderation. Duh! And it seems to be working like a treat!

                      You are wrong; we are not “concerned about open and honest dialogue on these issues”. Firstly, and you need to understand this, there’s no dialogue as such about moderation on this site. Secondly, you are the one who’s been avoiding and/or refusing answering questions and thus you have not been “open and honest”. I will look at your other comments held in Auto-Moderation after I’ve had a coffee – Incognito]

                    • Incognito []
                      20 July 2019 at 3:26 pm

                      See my Moderation note @ 2:50 PM.

                    • The Al1en …
                      20 July 2019 at 6:39 pm

                      “I will look at your other comments held in Auto-Moderation after I’ve had a coffee”

                      And a kit kat, a bath, a rub down with the Sporting Life and both episodes of The Simpsons. 😆

                    • Incognito []
                      20 July 2019 at 6:45 pm

                      I’m not myself when I’m hungry 😉

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      20 July 2019 at 8:43 pm

                      Here's my 2 cents-worth of "interrogation", Rubbish, should you, by the grace of god, reappear here to respond to it:

                      What, I ask, does "this "movements" funders want in return"???

                      Awaiting … eager anticipation etc.

                    • Incognito []
                      20 July 2019 at 9:04 pm

                      Good question, Robert. It will take a miracle for Rubbish to keep their privilege to comment here on this free forum, Deo Volente.

                      BTW, many thanks for your wonderful contribution to the discussions under the Dinosaurs Post.

                    • Robert Guyton …
                      20 July 2019 at 9:27 pm

                      You're most welcome, Incognito. I was fascinated by dinosaurs when I was a child and their awkward strangeness still makes me laugh; I can still remember my astonishment at learning how tiny the brains of the lumbering herbivores were and how tooth-grindingly slow the movement of neural messages from their extremities toward those grey-matter peanuts was, often arriving weeks after they were needed. Some people believe the dinosaurs all perished antediluvian, or evolved into something more modern, but I'm not a believer; I hear their thudding footfalls and distant doleful bellows every now and again, making me all but certain some have survived unchanged.

  7. Ric 7
    19 July 2019 at 3:40 pm

    There is a marked contrast between National's cheap shots over the government's attempts to improve the emissions profile of New Zealand's car fleet with James Shaw's continual attempts to be inclusive and build consensus.

    If the government can get voting support for a strong Climate Change Amendment Bill they would be best to give the new climate commission similar independence to what the reserve bank currently has.

    Further indications that National can not be relied upon to respond to climate change effectively are shown when :

    " Muller strongly suggested that the party would stop supporting the bill if the methane reduction targets in it weren’t reduced further. That would put the bill in very dangerous territory, with NZ First then in a position to hold it to ransom."

    https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/15-06-2019/climate-change-and-the-rural-way-of-life/

    By the next election the need to respond to climate change will be even more obvious than it is now. National is taking a big gamble if they think many people will vote for a party that as the New Zealand Herald states "knows we have to combat climate change but undermines every effort to address the issue."

  8. Chris T 8
    19 July 2019 at 4:21 pm

    I tell you what.

    When you can tell me how reducing our 0.17% contribution to global emissions, most of which is actually naturally produced will have an affect on climate change, I will take this thread seriously.

    If you want to try the "We have to set an example and the big ones will follow" argument, I will point out places like Norway etc have already tried this and it didn't work

    • Ric 8.1
      19 July 2019 at 4:56 pm

      New Zealand will be in a better position to lobby other countries after we have taken effective action on climate change than we are now. Other countries have already demonstrated an interest in taking action by signing the Paris agreement As the weather becomes more extreme they will be more inclined to take action.

      Any positive action creates momentum and hope among the many groups world wide that are working on this issue. And even if it all turns to custard I'd rather know that New Zealand had tried rather than given up in despair.

      Look at the international support for the Montreal Protocol on the the ozone issue. That shows that international cooperation is possible on atmospheric issues.

    • Psycho Milt 8.2
      19 July 2019 at 6:44 pm

      When you can tell me how reducing our 0.17% contribution to global emissions, most of which is actually naturally produced will have an affect on climate change, I will take this thread seriously.

      Surely the onus is on you to demonstrate why particular populations in the industrialised world should be exempt from the obligation to do something about the problem?

      • Chris T 8.2.1
        19 July 2019 at 8:19 pm

        No. The onus is on you to show how us charging people and business taxes and interferring our prime industries, when the big emitters aren't will make a difference to global climate change

        • Psycho Milt 8.2.1.1
          19 July 2019 at 8:50 pm

          The onus on me is easily taken care of. Greenhouse gas emissions are driving climate change, therefore we need to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. That obligation isn't dependent on what anyone else does. Your turn…

          • Chris T 8.2.1.1.1
            19 July 2019 at 8:59 pm

            I think you have missed the point. We could wipe NZ off the map tomorrow and our sudden no 0.17% contribution to global emissions would make no noticable difference to climate change.

            Get back to me when you want to make real change and demand cutting down arlines and multiple children

            • Psycho Milt 8.2.1.1.1.1
              19 July 2019 at 10:17 pm

              I think you have missed the point.

              No, I'm entirely familiar with your spurious argument, but the "spurious" bit makes it not a very good argument. For example, if I'm murdering only 0.17% of the people being murdered every day, I might tell myself that it makes little difference whether or not I stop murdering people. The statement would in one sense be true, but would nevertheless make a very poor argument for my continuing to murder people.

              In short: whether I'm doing the right thing or not isn't contingent on what other people are doing. Unless I'm a Sophist.

              • Chris T …
                20 July 2019 at 9:59 pm

                You aren't murdering anybody and airplanes alone pump out about 20 x our entire country

            • Macro 8.2.1.1.1.2
              20 July 2019 at 3:48 pm

              Oh that's a relief! I have no moral obligation to reduce my 18 tonnes per year of carbon emissions whatsoever, because compared to the rest of the world my contribution is negligible. Now everyone can just continue to carry on as before and not worry about pesky carbon emissions, even though, compared to someone in say Cuba, who's carbon foot print is around 2.5 tonnes per annum, our carbon footprint is massive.

              By the way – Cuba has reduced its Carbon emissions per capita since 1996 by around 5%. On the other hand, here in NZ we have increased our Carbon Emissions by around 18% over the same time period.

              But no worries, with a broken moral compass we can continue to pollute with a clear conscience.

  9. mosa 9
    19 July 2019 at 7:21 pm

    It's now official the National party is detrimental to the future of the country and the planet.

  10. george.com 10
    19 July 2019 at 10:09 pm

    Lets go back a bit in time to examine how the National Party has previously acted about Climate Change. Mid 2000's there was the suggestion of a carbon tax $10 (I think) per ton as well as a levy on farm stock to fund research into methane reduction.Don Brash ran around squawking about taxes and claiming climate change was a hoax. Muddying the water as much as he could and making political capital out of the issue in a cynical attempt to become Prime Minister. A failed attempt thankfully. We have memories of Shane Ardern driving a tractor up the stairs of Parliament. Nothing constructive from the National Party, lots of moaning and diversion. A decade plus later, seems not a whole lot has changed.

    • Macro 10.1
      20 July 2019 at 3:59 pm

      Exactly! And they haven't changed their spots. Still the same ol' claptrap. "fast followers" and all that. 🙄

  11. Rubbish 11
    19 July 2019 at 11:42 pm

    "Gail epitomises the new generation of ‘professional activists’, having positioned herself at the epicentre of the revolving door between big business, government bureaucracies and establishment-friendly NGOs, campaign groups and charitable organisations, all of which increasingly function as the public face of international corporate and financial power."

    https://www.vigiliae.org/dr-gail-marie-bradbrook-compassionate-revolutionary-for-hire-by-un-extinction/

  12. The Chairman 12
    20 July 2019 at 12:25 am

    Some points being overlooked.

    New Zealand accounts for a fraction of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore regardless how much we cut back, our efforts alone aren't going to save the world.

    Our actions may encourage others to change, so we may help in that way.

    Nevertheless, the less we reduce our greenhouse gas emission, the more (as a country) we are going to have to pay. So National playing politics comes with real fiscal costs.

    https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/05/new-zealand-to-spend-14-billion-to-meet-paris-agreement-targets.html

    • Rubbish 12.1
      20 July 2019 at 12:43 am

      How is paying supposed to reduce greenhouse gases, simply because it will apply pressure as a deterrent?

      What are we doing here, agreeing to impose sanctions on ourselves collectively for not living chaste enough lives; both recognizing and applying a burden of original sin; playing a psycho-sexual game?

      Something is broken in our culture psychologically, mentally, perhaps spiritually. We inverted our relation to reason and we are inverting our relation to nature.

      Progressives have abandoned progress as it was originally thrust. Now progress is to review, to revise, to reverse. The future is spoken of as a returning to rather than a going to. We do not grow into we adjust to.

      Voluntarily imposing a fiscal cost on ourselves for failing to protect the environment rather than using that payment to improve our environment is a strange thing for a society to do.

      I am trying to understand how we got here. I feel like it is time to return to the McMillian Brown library and to my favorite source of insight into human behaviour, Papua New Guinea.

      • The Chairman 12.1.1
        20 July 2019 at 1:01 am

        How is paying supposed to reduce greenhouse gases, simply because it will apply pressure as a deterrent?

        That's the idea. And it's used as an offset and to alter investments.

        Our leaders have agreed to impose sanctions or costs (which represent a significant transfer of wealth overseas) on ourselves collectively. With the aim of saving the planet.

        Now progress is to review, to revise, to reverse. The future is now spoken of as a returning to rather than a going to.

        Not necessarily, there is also transitioning to a green tech future.

        • Rubbish 12.1.1.1
          20 July 2019 at 1:16 am

          as FtM or MtF?

          Taxing ourselves then feeding that money into an international billionaires loop probably won’t benefit New Zealand tangibly and never in positive relation to the investment, or tax. It probably won’t benefit the environment much. But we can call the blockchain IPO PunishmentCoin.

          Can you imagine the sort of compliance costs this scheme would entail, or would it all be self-reporting?

          • Rubbish 12.1.1.1.1
            20 July 2019 at 1:34 am

            Carbon Credits sound like a great system for countries with bad compliance profiles, countries with officials who are happy to create more jobs for their cousins to sit on and collect on providing a rich, confused and irresponsible transnational organization is willing to pay for it.

            • Sam 12.1.1.1.1.1
              20 July 2019 at 5:44 pm

              Floating a carbon price PROPERLY would work pretty much the same way as floating the kiwi dollar on the global market.

              • Rubbish …
                20 July 2019 at 5:46 pm

                How do you feel about floating it on the blockchain?

                • Sam …
                  20 July 2019 at 6:23 pm

                  You're not one of them snowflakes are you?

                  a central government that adopts blockchain technology would immediately cause that governments bond market to pack in, and its financial sector would halve not long after. That is what disintermediation does. For sending fiat from nation to nation would be fine. Once the next recession hits America and it will, then we will get modern monetary theory, Block Chain, a UBI, democratised energy and so on.

      • Grey Area 12.1.2
        20 July 2019 at 2:31 pm

        Away you go then

        This site would be better for it. People like you are the reason I hardly ever come here anymore.

        Mission accomplished I guess.

        • Incognito 12.1.2.1
          20 July 2019 at 3:54 pm

          That would be a shame because we’re working hard to lift the level of discourse here.

          Kia kaha.

          • Rubbish 12.1.2.1.1
            20 July 2019 at 4:14 pm

            We are all want people to be able to debate things openly and honestly without partisanship.

            I must say I am concerned about the tendency to censor whatever crosses the official party line. Let's wait and see.

            [You are in moderation exactly because you show that you don’t want “to debate things openly and honestly” and in good faith. Now you’re doubling down by calling it censorship!?

            What “official party line” are you referring to? Be specific and point to it; don’t make up shit and wave your arms around.

            You’re taking up a lot of my precious time and you’re not making progress towards resolving the issue of your behaviour on this site – Incognito]

            • Incognito 12.1.2.1.1.1
              20 July 2019 at 4:30 pm

              See my Moderation note @ 4:14 PM.

            • Rubbish 12.1.2.1.1.2
              20 July 2019 at 4:33 pm

              Incognito, I gave you a very good answer which you have not allowed through moderation, and you will be perfectly aware of that. By not letting in pass, you will be able to silence or ban me, claiming that I have not engaged in open and honest debate. That much is obvious.

              [Uh-huh. I have not had a chance to read your “very good answer” and it’s still in Auto-Moderation. Except for your brief inflammatory comment about why is the Labour-Greens coalition doing the Nazi goosestep, which didn’t appear to be a reply to any other comment and ended up in Trash, I have approved every single comment by you so far. However, you’re not making progress to improving your precarious situation. In addition, I’m also waiting for your explanation of “the official party line” in the context of alleged censorship – Incognito]

    • Robert Guyton 12.2
      20 July 2019 at 2:33 pm

      "regardless how much we cut back, our efforts alone aren't going to save the world"

      Weird: a straw man made from tripe!

      I love this argument: we're too small and inconsequential to make any difference.

      Imagine a country such as China; it should act to reduce it's greenhouse gas load, yes?

      But China consists of thousands of small prefectures. Each of those can claim, as some New Zealanders are claiming, that they are too small to make any difference, and therefore should be exempt. Therefore, it's easy to extrapolate, all of China must be released from any obligation to act. The same trick works for America, made up as it is of smaller units. Why, no country on the planet needs to do a thing, coz small parts! Brilliant! The idiots solution to the problem.

      • The Chairman 12.2.1
        20 July 2019 at 2:50 pm

        Weird tripe from you indeed, Robert. A country's total emissions are a country's total emissions. Not conveniently broken down into regions and used as a credible argument.

        • Robert Guyton 12.2.1.1
          20 July 2019 at 3:41 pm

          "New Zealand accounts for a fraction of the world's greenhouse gas emissions."

          California "accounts for a fraction of the world's greenhouse gas emissions"

          Idaho "accounts for a fraction of the world's greenhouse gas emissions"

          Milwaukee "accounts for a fraction of the world's greenhouse gas emissions"

          Texas " accounts for a fraction of the world's greenhouse gas emissions"

          Why should they have to change; they're small players.

          Every small unit can claim the same thing but each is part of the whole. Perhaps "Pacific Islands" is our super-set as "America" is Idaho's. It suits people to claim smallness and disconnect from the whole, but that's just a semantic trick.

          The nonsense of “A country’s total emissions are a country’s total emissions. Not conveniently broken down into regions and used as a credible argument.”
          is demonstrated by Europe, which consists of a number of countries sharing arbitrary borders; should Germany be exempt from obligation because it’s only a small part of Europe?

          • The Chairman 12.2.1.1.1
            20 July 2019 at 10:51 pm

            New Zealand is a country, Robert. California, Idaho, Milwaukee and Texas are not. They are a part of the US.

            Germany (albeit in Europe) is a country.

            So again, a country’s total emissions are a country’s total emissions. Not conveniently broken down into regions and used as a credible argument.

            • Jenny - How to Get there? 12.2.1.1.1.1
              21 July 2019 at 6:57 am

              New Zealand's total emissions are only 0.2% of the world's total.

              In the light of this fact, Sir Peter Gluckman when he was the country's chief science advisor, wrote that New Zealand's greatest contribution to fighting climate change will be by setting an example by giving a lead.

              Despite Professor Gluckman's singular comment, missing in the whole climate change debate is the question of leadership. No one wants to take the lead. Almost, everyone agrees that something needs to be done, but almost everyone wants to be 'fast followers' not leaders.

              It's the herd mentality, no one moves till everyone moves.

              To achieve real change requires courageous leadership prepared to go out in front and lead, not follow, nor wait until everyone is in agreement.

              Change occurs only when someone takes a risk and goes out in front, challenging the rest of us, to either follow that lead, (or oppose it).

              When someone takes action it changes things.

              Action is what counts, and leading action is what counts most of all.

              Greta Thunberg's one person picket and school strike is an example.

              Someone somewhere needs to go out in front and take the lead.

              Why not us?

              We led the world in women's suffrage, we led the world in founding the Welfare State, we led the world in banning nuclear weapons from our territory.

              (On the negative side of the ledger we led the world in imposing neo-liberal economic reforms.)

              We are a world leader.

              We gave a global lead, on how to collectively respond to terrorism and extremism with kindness and solidarity.

              We need to be a global leader again.

              No country is better placed to take the lead on climate change. We are already at 80% renewable electricity, we could make it 100% with the stroke of a pen today. We could ban 'ALL NEW' oil and gas exploration and exploitation, both off-shore and in-shore, especially if it uses fracking.

              To set an example our politicians could refuse to fly, (at least domestically).

              As Greta Thunberg, who has given up flying, said, 'If our leaders are not seen to take climate change seriously, how can anyone else?'

              (Our Green Party MPs need to give a lead here.)

              • The Chairman …
                21 July 2019 at 1:15 pm

                Hi Jenny.

                Unlike Robert, it's good to see you acknowledge that (re the overall impact of our low emissions).

                Yes, we can help by setting an example. However, to be blunt, we're not (as a nation overall) in the best fiscal position to risk venturing too far down that path. Which was somewhat highlighted by Shaw's announcement re agricultural emissions.

                We are the first country in the world that has said we will put a price on agricultural emissions on any level. Therefore, we are leading in that respect. However, the small step taken on that highlights our fiscal weakness/capacity to take larger strides.

                As Jacinda pointed out, we can't afford to collapse such a leading sector by going to far to fast.

                Nevertheless, as we are internationally committed, we will either have to vastly reduce our emissions or it will cost us largely – as highlighted by my link above at comment 12.

          • Jenny - How to Get there? 12.2.1.1.2
            21 July 2019 at 6:19 am

            If you put all the small countries including New Zealand together we make up 30% of global emissions.

            Donald Trump has used the same argument, saying that as the US is responsible for only 15% of world's emissions, China at 30% need to clean up their act first.

            It is all similar to John Key's 'Fast follower' doctrine, no one country wants to lead unless they lose some competitive trading advantage. Everyone is waiting for everyone else to go first.

            The 'fast follower' doctrine is the opposite of leadership, in practice 'fast' has been a 'crawl' and 'following' has been 'psychophancy'.

            The question to be asked of the supporters of the fast follower doctrine, who should we be 'fast following'?

            Donald Trump?

  13. SHG 13
    20 July 2019 at 5:10 am

    “The Standard says the Herald says Simon Wilson says National says Simon Bridges says zzzzzzzzzz”

  14. JustMe 14
    20 July 2019 at 8:10 am

    Whilst in government National denied there was a housing crisis, people living in poverty, homelessness, etc.etc.etc. In other words they live in their OWN little land of make believe(aka Planet Key).

    I am sure if given half the chance National would claim there is no problem of the population of the Maui dolphin.

    Also given half the chance National would claim that NZ roads were 100% perfect whilst they were in government. Yet I do recall Simon Bridges once saying that it was not up to the government(the National government at the time)to ensure NZ roads and roading is safe.

    National will deny, refuse, reject or take accountability or even responsibility for all the misdeeds they created or enhanced upon in 9 long years of poor governmentship.

    In fact the legacy of the previous National government is in their haste to make eager bedfellows with say China they lost touch with reality of what is happening in deliberately kept low income NZ.

    Simon Bridges is pretty well damned useless as leader of the NZ national party. If he ever took accountability for the actions of the previous national government(I deliberately use lower case now to describe the NZ national party and its past government)then he might just gain a few extra votes for admitting the NZ national party failed NZers.

    But then I am going on a completely different tangent here. I guess what I am trying to say is the NZ national party will always shift blame upon someone else. It's what they are good at. It's probably the ONLY thing they are good at because whilst they were in government they lacked taking accountability or responsibility.

    And so we can all be well assured National will never accept what is the obvious even when it comes to say global warming. Nothing happens on toilet free Planet Key(aka the NZ National Party).

  15. tc 15
    20 July 2019 at 8:37 am

    I see private citizen Wayne's a busy little tr@ll these days.

  16. Cinny 16
    20 July 2019 at 11:11 am

    Say we clean up our environment as a result of calling a climate emergency…what's the worst that could happen?

  17. Robert Guyton 17
    20 July 2019 at 2:22 pm

    "Martial law, further restrictions on basic freedoms."

    Extremist Rhetoric Rubbish.

    Take your pick.

    • Pat 17.1
      20 July 2019 at 4:11 pm

      If martial law is the concern then the best way to achieve it is to allow BAU as the worse the impact the greater the risk that extreme actions will be taken

  18. A 18
    20 July 2019 at 5:35 pm

    The same people who refused to accept we had a housing crisis brewing back in 2014-16.

    Good thing they aren't in power anymore

    • Chris T 18.1
      20 July 2019 at 8:38 pm

      We were having issues with housing before the Nats got in

      I agree that the Nats did a shit job trying to sort it, but to pretend it wasn't happening during the last Labour govt, is frankly laughable

  19. Rubbish 19
    20 July 2019 at 9:46 pm

    I'll tell you one thing, Robert: you purple ass fantasy about dinosaurs ain't going to win over working men and women!

    You're most welcome, Incognito. I was fascinated by dinosaurs when I was a child and their awkward strangeness still makes me laugh; I can still remember my astonishment at learning how tiny the brains of the lumbering herbivores were and how tooth-grindingly slow the movement of neural messages from their extremities toward those grey-matter peanuts was, often arriving weeks after they were needed. Some people believe the dinosaurs all perished antediluvian, or evolved into something more modern, but I'm not a believer; I hear their thudding footfalls and distant doleful bellows every now and again, making me all but certain some have survived unchanged.

    Yes, and some of these dinosaur deplorables might not vote for team rainbow if you keep whispering your Pokemon fanfic down your nose at them.

    • Robert Guyton 19.1
      21 July 2019 at 5:46 pm

      Dinosaurs could vote?

      Democracy's far older than I thought!

      • Psycho Milt 19.1.1
        21 July 2019 at 7:07 pm

        To be fair, we have little knowledge of the cognitive faculties or social organisation of dinosaurs (speaking here of actual rather than metaphorical ones), so the possibility that they took votes amongst themselves shouldn't be completely ruled out.

        I think Rubbish is actually attempting to convey their opinion that the metaphorical dinosaurs you encountered in your attempt to get your council to declare a climate emergency will be unwilling to vote for homosexual or transgender candidates if you write any further comments about actual dinosaurs. I suspect it's a non-sequitur (ie, such people would be unlikely to vote for "team rainbow" regardless of your comments), but would need a sociolinguist to properly decipher the relevant sentence to confirm that.

  20. Robert Guyton 20
    21 July 2019 at 7:56 pm

    Actual dinosaurs?

    I thought them extinct, but Rubbish has reignited my interest in the Thunder Lizards. I wonder if they could see their end approaching before it arrived in the form of a massive asteroid? If Rubbish was a dinosaur (stegosaurus, I'm seeing) living in the last days of the dinosaurs, he'd be saying, "That itty-bitty flying rock: NOTHING to worry about, my fellow reed-munchers, chew on, chew on!".

    However, now that I've written again about dinosaurs, against best advice, my chances of winning over "working men and women" are surely shot. I'll have to make a play for the layabouts and ne'r-do-wells that Bill English made hay from not so long ago; you know, young people. I'll get in touch with the Extinction Rebellion people and see if they'd like to support my campaign.

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.