Voices of the people on emissions targets and climate change

Written By: - Date published: 7:17 am, June 1st, 2015 - 37 comments
Categories: activism, climate change, democratic participation, global warming, sustainability - Tags: , , , ,

Get your written submission in before Wednesday! See fixourfuture for an easy to use web form, or here for general advice.

The government has held a series of consultation meetings with we the public on “setting New Zealand’s post-2020 climate change target”.

I attended the Dunedin meeting on Thursday the 21 of May in the Glenroy auditorium. There was only word-of-mouth advertising, and a last minute venue change (very sensible given the interest in the preparatory event organised by Wise Response). Even so, an excellent turnout of about 300 people attended the meeting (see ODT report).

dunedin-consult
(Photo from Oil Free Otago)

It was an extraordinary evening. So many people spoke with concern, with intelligence, with anger, with compassion, with emotion. Some spoke with hope, some without. We the audience supported each other and those who chose to speak with frequent applause and thanks. There was a real feeling of determination and common purpose.

For the record, I made what notes I could.

=== Begins ===

The meeting started with a welcome and an introduction by the officials, including a short video. They explained the rules for the discussion, five minutes per speaker. A member of the audience immediately challenged, suggesting that three minutes was enough. This was put to the meeting, and unanimously supported. Remarkably, I think every single speaker stuck to this rule. Contributions were concise and relevant.

Each paragraph below is a summary of the contribution of one individual speaker. There are occasional notes in [square brackets]. My apologies for any errors and omissions.

=== Speakers from the audience said ===

The 2° warming target is gone already, we can’t limit temperature increases to that. Both the government and this meeting should acknowledge that reality.

NZ committed to a 50% reduction (from 1990 base levels) by 2050 in Copenhagen. Why the need for consultation, why aren’t we acting? [An official replied that that commitment was made by government negotiators and had no “legislative force”, leading to vocal incredulity from the audience].

Why are we still doing oil exploration? If we are trying to reduce emissions, fossil fuel reserves must remain in the ground.

Science should determine the process and our targets, rather than public consultation. Health factors must be taken into account.

This is not an economic question, it is a moral and ethical question. Future generations will judge us. The costs of not acting are that billions will die. [Interjections from the audience, why is the cost of action discussed in the consultation document, but not the costs of inaction? The consultation document is rubbish.]

The consultation document says that we must be “pragmatic”. What are we going to do when our land is underwater, and our oceans are acidic? The economy is not the only bottom line. There is no economy without the environment.

What is the relationship between climate change and the TPP? Will the TPP limit our ability to act?

We are a Pacific nation, and the Pacific is highly vulnerable. We are accountable to our neighbours.

New Zealand should be leading by example, like we did on the nuclear free issue.

[One of NZ’s youth representatives to climate change talks:] We need a 40% reduction target by 2030 [here, as at many points in the evening, many in the audience held up 40% reduction posters distributed by Oil Free Otago]. No more carbon – we’re an innovative country, we can find a way. How is it that we are still subsidising polluters and fossil fuel? Why was Dunedin originally left off the list for consultation meetings?

The consultation document talks about “doing our fair share”. What happened to the old New Zealand when we were a leader, an innovator, not a follower?

The government is spending $26 million consulting on the flag. How much are they spending on this? [Officials commented that they could not say specifically, but it was much less.]

The economic system is corrupt. We cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet. We need to get away from debt-based money, we need sovereign money. We could lead with a “democratic sustainable economic system”.

[This speaker was very young – 10?] We spend money to protect native species, why not on oceans and the threat of acidification? Most of our area is ocean.

Our Pacific neighbours are not mentioned in the document. It’s not good enough. Young volunteers are at work in the Pacific, why is our government not acting?

[Julie Anne Genter, Green MP:] We accept that this is not the officials’ [here at the meeting] fault, it is government that is to blame. Climate is not mentioned in the budget. We are paying $160 million in subsidies to polluters via the ETS, why? We need to decouple the economy from greenhouse gas emissions. Support the 40% target.

[Professor Bob Lloyd, Otago Physics Department:] 40% target is too low by half. If we want to stay below 2° warming we need to reduce emissions by 7% per annum starting in 2021 (more if we are to allow for increasing emissions in developing countries). Current pledges are not even close. There is a huge mismatch between what is needed, and the pledges. We need proper costing of the consequences of inaction! Carbon capture is inefficient and hard. [Some of these points arose as people started asking questions directly of Prof Lloyd from the audience.] [Alan Mark, Chair, Wise Response Society:] There are wider issues than those in the consultation document. Health. Biodiversity. In a meeting earlier in the week in Dunedin more than 200 people passed a remit calling for action. Will there be a public release of the document that the government takes to Paris? [The officials commented that the target will be made public.]

[First speaker again:] We need a 7 to 10% reduction per year but economists say that risks an economic slowdown or crash. Government only listens to arguments about the economy. If the government got serious about emissions reduction, would the civil service be up to it? Can we make a state change? The onus is on all of us here at this meeting, the middle class, to give up our multiple houses and our KiwiSaver, to make sacrifices. It is a challenge to us. [The enthusiastic applause which follows each speaker was somewhat muted on this occasion – but it’s a truth we must face.] [A student:] How can we reduce agricultural emissions and allow growth?

[A student:] Does New Zealand think of itself as an environmental leader?

[A medical student:] climate change will involve health issues. We need to move from a discussion about the future to the present tense, action now.

Why are carbon charges not in the consultation document? We need to apply market forces. No rewards for polluters. We need to shift the burden away from the innovative green economy onto the old dinosaur industries. We should be ashamed to be followers, it’s not the ANZAC spirit.

Why is there no support for sustainability education in schools? Teachers are told “don’t go there”. It should be part of the New Zealand curriculum, every school. [Huge applause.]

2° of warming will increase health problems in New Zealand. The government should lead, as it did with the neocon revolution. Direct action is needed.

Don’t rely on carbon credits. We need creative ways to reduce carbon emissions now. Plant trees. Biodiversity is important. We need to reduce emissions, not buy offshore credits.

Who did the government consult in preparing this document? It’s not good enough. We need leadership from the Ministry to inform government. Why are we aiming for a mediocre 90% renewable energy generation? New Zealand can achieve 100%. Stop cosying up to the fossil fuel industry. Don’t be complacent, it is shameful, 100% renewable generation is achievable now.

The figures on renewable energy generation ignore petrol. It is not total energy.

The consultation document is all about the costs of action, but needs to consider costs of inaction. Limiting temperature to a 2° increase is technically possible, and economically possible, with 0.5% GDP cost (much less than “defence”). The economic analysis has been done, including a model of the economy with a price on carbon. We do it by starting now! The longer we wait the harder it gets. Our innovation can cope, we need to get on with it.

Tiwai smelter should be converted from aluminium production to silicon production – solar panels.

The predictions of environmental models are scary. We have had so many warnings and deadlines. Action is always five years away. The models keep getting worse. We need a zero or negative emissions. We have the technology for zero, not yet for capture/storage. We need to stop hiding behind the difficulties and see the opportunities. Be bold. 0% by 2040. A recent article in the Guardian describes $5.3 trillion in subsidies to fossil fuels. That’s madness. Apply subsidies to achieving zero carbon.

Act now. This affects the world. Every single person. We will have to give up the nice car. Not a select group, all of us. Our heart and soul is in it, is our government? Action now!

[Marion Hobbs, ex Minister for the Environment:] Your Minister is for both trade and climate. We need a minister who is at home in New Zealand to coordinate. Environment is not rated highly enough by any government. We need leadership on energy, transport, home efficiency, urban design, agriculture. Thanks [to the officials] for your work, but we need evidence of good work across departments. [Officials commented there is a “natural resources sector” which is doing work across departments, it could do more.] [Aaron Hawkins, Councillor, Dunedin City Council:] I am a writer, I see the world in an emotional context. I fear for future generations. I acknowledge the anger and anxiety of the young who have spoken at this meeting. The inertia of all government has created this problem. I’m scared to have kids. It is a terrifying future. [Aaron was breaking up, he moved the audience deeply.] [A representative of Generation Zero:] I thank and support the previous speaker. 2030 is not long-term. We have the tools, fix our future!

Many people have been working on this issue for decades, much is being done. Many have made choices to live simply. We have to make changes, the middle-class, across the board. The market economy ends (or we do). I am gutted for future generations. There has been too much gluttony. We need to recharge environmental capital / the natural world. It is an immense transition, massive change.

This is the biggest problem ever, worldwide. Act now. Live up to New Zealand’s image and act now!

This is a political process. We are smart people with passion and drive. We need to address every step, every mission, every way. It’s not a question of if we should, we must, it’s a question of how we do it.

[Jinty McTavish, Councillor, Dunedin City Council:] Six years ago many of the people in this room were at another “consultation” meeting with Nick Smith [yes, I was there]. We asked for 40% reduction by 2020 [the country asked for it too!]. Nothing happened. Today we have paid the price. We need more ambitious targets [strong audience applause]. 40% reduction is the minimum. Anything less is totally unacceptable. Second point, co-benefits. Healthy homes, cycling, there are benefits as well as costs in action. Final point, going through regional planning processes there are very specific targets and dollars amounts. We must accept no less on climate targets. Be specific.

[A mother:] This government won’t take realistic action. So what do we people do. General strike, will you join me? Kick out this government and its cronies who rule the world.

[A grandmother: ] Speaking for the mokopuna – did you [the officials] mean it – did you mean the fine words of your welcome [which was delivered in Te Reo [this unworthy scribe was unable to translate]]? [Officials comment that they meant the words.]

Stop subsidising the fossil fuel industry, the New Zealand petroleum organisation. Do you have any comment? [Officials, no. Questions directed to the officials:] are there plans to reduce coal or oil use? [Officials, not aware of any.] Do you have an opinion on coal drilling? [Officials, not in the context of this process, no.] We in New Zealand are lucky and insulated, the rest of the planet not so much. Represent us well in Paris.

There is a lot of disillusionment with government. We need to get our submissions in. The government will make no effort. Compare with what can be accomplished in a time of war. Take action! We need to push for wider support for action.

This is one of a series of consultation documents, it is the weakest. I’m ashamed to be a New Zealander. Questions for the audience: Who thinks we are doing enough? [0 hands] Who thinks we should be doing more? [near unanimous]. You (the officials) are the fall guys, yes, but you have a duty to relay to government what the mood is. Future generations will judge us harshly, there is a lack of leadership. Take a strong message to Wellington.

Action needs to be pan-political (as Wise Response recommended). We all need to get behind it. We can’t keep changing with different governments, it must be consistent. It will be hard work. We need a united global population.

[A teacher:] I am here with four prefects from my school. They were all at the ANZAC dawn service. Lest we forget. There is no self, only complex systems. There are no contries or boundaries, we are part of the Earth.

[A prefect:] I don’t want my generation to have to go through this process. All schools should be enviro schools. People need to know more for the future. “We ask not for lighter burdens but broader shoulders”.

Maori communities are disadvantaged and vulnerable. What consultation has there been with iwi, hapu, whanau? [Officials comment that there are 16 meetings round the country.] [A primary teacher:] You officials are in a hard spot. Please advise the Ministers. The Ministry of the Environment doesn’t seem to know about the environment! Take our messages loud and clear. Government needs to grow some balls. This is a matter of morals and ethics, not GDP. [Officials comment that we should read the MoE briefing to incoming ministers.]

There is a universal connection. “Merchants of doubt”, read it, watch it. There is a denier industry. John Key said on BBC Hard Talk that he can always find another scientist. We need to make people aware of disinformation. Take back our anger and frustration to Wellington. Put a ponytail on the document.

[The very young speaker again:] The consultation document says we may be “less well off” if we act. How can we be less well off if we have been saved from disaster?

Well done to the young who have spoken at this meeting. It is appreciated.

This document is about post-2020. That will be another government. That government will ignore this process. The current government must take action, we can’t wait five years. Start now. It is the only option for society.

[Officials suggest winding up the meeting, audience disagrees.]

We’re a big country, most of our area is ocean. We have a voice and should stand for something. The ocean is becoming acidified. The future for our children is scary. The government needs to look forward, and work backward from what is needed. Whatever costs we have to do it.

[NZ Youth representative again:] There is a principle of intergenerational equity at stake which the government should support, not reject.

This meeting was not well advertised, not everyone is here. It is not just us here in this room who are concerned.

Climate change is an inconvenient truth. Why are we not adopting new technologies? Solar? The costs of coal and fossil fuels are externalised. Make it a level playing field for new technology.

There are plenty of films on a post-apocalyptic world. What would a post-climate change world look like? Thirty years ago New Zealand led the world becoming nuclear free. We should lead on climate change. We must leave a liveable world for our descendants.

Why are there no ministers here? Why are officials fronting the government’s position against overwhelming public opinion? How can the public participate or answer when the consultation document does not cover the costs of inaction? There is no point in setting a target without a plan.

Renewable infrastructure creates jobs (more than the oil industry). If any country can do it, we can. Don’t be lazy and ignorant. Government must work for the people.

If you want to make a difference, make a submission! A written submission. We want international leadership, we need local leadership. Tell the government that is not good enough. Current economic models use a 10% discount rate, we need to change models and analysis. Why are we going backwards to diesel trains in Auckland? We need leadership today. We will compromise our lifestyle for our kids.

There is a quote, previous generations didn’t know, future generations it will be too late, it is down to us.

=== Officials wrap up ===

Make a written submission by 3 June. Thanks for your heart and soul, anger and passion. We will take the seriousness of these issues to Wellington. Here are five summary points we are taking from the meeting:

(1) There are significant costs to inaction on climate change which should have been better reflected in the consultation document.

(2) There are benefits to action for example to health and innovation.

(3) We need more leadership from our government in the world, especially in the Pacific region. Take on the big countries as we did on the nuclear issue.

(4) There needs to be cross party leadership and consensus. Build on community consensus.

(5) New Zealand’s emissions reduction target should be at least 40% by 2030, and probably 7% per annum. This should apply internationally.

[Meeting closed]

Compare with a similar account of one of the Wellington meetings.

37 comments on “Voices of the people on emissions targets and climate change ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Ad 1
    1 June 2015 at 7:29 am

    Epic!

    Can’t wait for an Auckland one.
    When is it?

  2. coaster 2
    1 June 2015 at 9:05 am

    this can be lead from the ground up, but no one has given realistic ideas for the average person.

    ive heard stop using your car, reduce your electricity usage , stop using your fire to heat your house etc etc.

    all fine ideas, but that would mean giving up work, homeschooling my kids, freezing in the winter and having no money to insulate or anything else.

    you dont get a fat lazy person fit by making them run a marathon strait off, they wont do it, or if they do they will die.

    there should have been a simple set of steps for normal people laid out years ago, ones that encourage a small reduction, but get people started in the mind set and get them training for bigger changes.

    governments wont do this, but if the is a groud swell of simple things, big business will have no choice other than to follow.
    currently saying to people to stop using there cars is ludicrous, most people will simply say get stuffed, but if you say reduce car travel and walk slighly more you might have a chance long term

    • RedLogix 2.1
      1 June 2015 at 11:38 am

      It’s a fair question coaster and I do understand where you are coming from.

      Like many big social and economic challenges it has two aspects – one that is about individual choices and responsibility and the other that is about collective social policies and opportunities.

      As an individual you can makes some limited choices at the moment, you can insulate your home better, make some use of solar (maybe not in the deep south), shop intelligently, eliminate unnecessary travel and so on. Which are all good things.

      But you also recognise that there are limits to what you, on your own can achieve. You need access to better choices around travel, heating, food and so on, that will genuinely achieve a low -carbon economy. And these choices need to be driven collectively, ideally from government, but failing this from the social and business communities taking action.

      I see both of these aspects as inseparable. For a socialist I’m actually a big believer in personal responsibility, while at the same time I recognise the power of social unity of purpose. Too many people see these as separate and different. They’re not – they’re the same thing looked at in two different ways.

      The answer is this – make the best choices that are available to you right now. And work in your community to help bring about better ones for your children.

      • David 2.1.1
        1 June 2015 at 7:30 pm

        What is ‘unnescessary travel’ exactly?

        • You_Fool 2.1.1.1
          2 June 2015 at 9:50 am

          Driving to the dairy down the road for a bottle of milk;
          Driving the kids to school 2 blocks over;
          Driving to work when there is a train/bus/ferry to take

  3. Charles 3
    1 June 2015 at 9:21 am

    “…The onus is on all of us here at this meeting, the middle class, to give up our multiple houses and our KiwiSaver, to make sacrifices. It is a challenge to us. [The enthusiastic applause which follows each speaker was somewhat muted on this occasion – but it’s a truth we must face.]…”

    Funny how announcing the source of the problem is always unpopular. The reliquishing of privilege in all it’s forms is the fast-track to regaining a more resilient society and a viable future. We can do it the “easy” way, or….*

    * I see no evidence that anyone wants to do it the “easy” way. If current trends are indicative of future movement, catastrophic collapse will only wake up another 25% of the population. The rest will demand tighter punitive enforcement of current ideologies, as if that will solve the problem those same ideologies caused. As thinking organisms, humans haven’t come very far.

    Someone asked yesterday how the GP becoming more mainstream could end in them becoming “weaker”. The answer is this: Our current “mainstream” attitude and direction is right leaning i.e. consumerism, conspicuous trinket consumption, social status climbing through material and financial accumulation. The GP, if they choose to go in search of the mainstream vote, has to move right and will lose their ability to act in ways that are “strong” on the environment – among other things. The invisible hand of the market has never and will not ever voluntarily restrain itself at the green belt of city limits.

    The (considerable) challenge to the GP, and anyone else, is in convincing the right wing mainstream that voluntarily changing direction is desireable. Don’t ask me how they’ll do that. Theoretically, anything is possible, but it won’t come using current known dialogues, because what it is actually asking is for someone to come up with a cure for greed. Voluntary steps by the informed and privileged, as asked by the above speaker, may be all there is at this time.

    The first step, which is still argued against vociferously by the privileged, is acknowledging that privilege exists, identifying its many forms, how it is used to accumulate resource and “potential to act with immunity to consequence”, and how it is almost always used destructively against those with less power.

  4. weka 4
    1 June 2015 at 9:49 am

    R0b, I can’t express the depth of my gratitude to both the people at that meeting and to yourself for writing up such a detailed report. Thank-you, thank-you, thank-you.

    A couple of first impressions. Very intelligent and heartening and appears to cover pretty much all bases.

    Those speakers are the start of the movement that Bill is talking about, that will transcend the political neoliberal dilemma we are in. Can those of us interested here on ts start to discuss this in more detail?

    • Bill 4.1
      1 June 2015 at 12:08 pm

      Can those of us interested here on ts start to discuss this in more detail?

      I have a post (still only on my head 😉 ) that I was ‘hanging fire’ on because I wanted to bounce it off the back of Anthony’s post. Possible and necessary action…

      Probably up tomorrow or the next day.

    • r0b 4.2
      1 June 2015 at 12:44 pm

      Cheers Weka, least I could do. So frustrating knowing that we are shouting into the void…

      • Macro 4.2.1
        1 June 2015 at 6:54 pm

        So frustrating knowing that we are shouting into the void…

        Yes!
        I attended the Hamilton forum with Jeanette Fitzsimons which was also very well attended, and where we heard very similar responses to those reported above. I gather from my daughter who attended the Auckland forum that it was very similar as well (although I gather Bryan Leyland and a friend attended – given a couple of minutes to say their nonsense and then told to be quiet).
        Speaking to one of the officials after the event it was pleasing to note that she was very aware of the urgency for action, and that was heartening. But one couldn’t help gaining the impression that it was all a white wash. After Lima and hearing the feed back from those who went as observers, the feeling is that Groser’s main objective is to do as little as we can get away with. This is how he approaches the concept of “trade negotiations” ie to get the best “deal” for the hear and now; whether or not it is good in the long term or in the overall interests of the country.
        Cabinet is where the decision on what NZ offers up in Paris is to be set, so I don’t expect anything other than a reiteration of 50% by 2050. which is of course utterly meaningless, as there are no means in place to achieve this end other than to purchase carbon credits from where ever they are cheapest (ie a huge scam).

  5. Sirenia 5
    1 June 2015 at 10:57 am

    In the last two weeks three packed meetings in Wellington including one at the university with knowledgeable academics and even economists. There is a strong movement happening here under the radar of the msm.

  6. johnm 6
    1 June 2015 at 11:50 am

    Good feel good stuff, giving people the warm fuzzy feeling 🙂 However, quite often there’s a however involved! If our once stable climate system can be compared with the Titanic, what they’re doing is having a meeting below decks to discuss if anything can be done about the the increasing tilt of the deck, perhaps move ballast to the back of the ship will cause the deck to even out? The good people don’t realise it’s too late. Perhaps the ship should some time ago have steered a more southerly course ?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2451604/Apocalypse-Now-Unstoppable-man-climate-change-reality-end-decade-make-New-York-London-Paris-uninhabitable-45-years-says-new-study.html

    • weka 6.1
      1 June 2015 at 12:38 pm

      No-one knows whether it’s too late or not. Anyone claiming to know definitively is lying. Claims of ‘it’s too late’ will prevent people from changing and so are akin to denialists. They’re part of the problem.

      (and sorry, not going to go to the Daily Mail for information on CC).

  7. adam 7
    1 June 2015 at 12:22 pm

    Why do people keep buying into the economic lie peddled by neo-liberals and their dishonest collective?

    Seriously folks – how an economy works is the essence of politics.

    The idea that the economy is somehow different from our everyday lives, and something only professionals can know. Is the greatest victory of the Tory scum in the twenty first century.

    Ironically, many on the right and the left buy into the idea. Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    The economy is the political decisions whereby we manage our collective state of affairs. Either for the common good, or for the monopolist beasts. . .

    • Craig H 7.1
      1 June 2015 at 1:07 pm

      It’s worse than that – not only have they peddled that lie, they have also peddled the lie that an economy and government budget are like a household budget, leading to terrible fallacies propagating.

      I’m a fan of Keynes, and Modern Monetary Theory, and could live with either of those being the mainstream, but this Austrian school neo-liberalism is so painful for the bottom quartile, and it’s totally unnecessary.

      • Colonial Rawshark 7.1.1
        1 June 2015 at 1:16 pm

        I’d (slightly) prefer Austrian school economics to Chicago School neoliberalism.

        Our political hierarchy is fixated on money being a physically limited resource which we must always pace to (the elite exclude themselves from this rule of course). But as you know, MMT recognises modern money for what it is – electronic ones and zeroes entered by keyboard. The truth is of course that the myth of the scarcity of money has been created as a rationing system and as a power concentration system. The bottom 90% of western societies are strictly rationed via scarcity of money supply to them, while the top 10%, and especially the top 0.1% live it up.

        And in a system such as this, those who control the issue of money (in our society that mostly equates to who can create lending) concentrate power around themselves.

        The last thing they want governments and ordinary people to realise is that the whole system is one of control and power over ordinary people, and in fact, over ordinary countries.

        • Craig H 7.1.1.1
          1 June 2015 at 3:41 pm

          Choosing between Chicago neo-liberalism and Austrian school economics is like choosing between lethal injection or the electric chair…

          Any money scarcity should only be to keep confidence in the value of the money, to avoid hyperinflation. Other than that, it doesn’t actually matter – UBI would be easily achieved with MMT, for example.

          • Colonial Rawshark 7.1.1.1.1
            1 June 2015 at 4:05 pm

            Exactly. The real skill in economics is ensuring that a nation invests created money in building capability, capacity and competition in supplying valuable, needed goods and services.

            That in itself will go a long way towards preventing any possibility of hyper-inflation.

            • David 7.1.1.1.1.1
              1 June 2015 at 7:56 pm

              Venezuela has solved the problem of making money scarce. Sadly, it means no one can get toilet paper, but on the up side the Bolivar is now a cheaper option to wipe your bum with.

              https://reason.com/blog/2015/05/26/venezuelan-bolivar-now-worth-more-as-toi

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                1 June 2015 at 8:08 pm

                Venezuela is under deliberate attack and isolation by major western financial powers, as well as by the elite 1% within its own borders. The goal is to destabilise the current government, over throw it via a “colour revolution” and replace it with one which is far friendlier to the interests of foreign multinationals – especially US energy giants who want in on Venezuela’s billions of barrels worth of oil reserves.

                It is a country where the US embassy was found to be paying stipends to senior Venezuelan police officers in order to control them and their activities.

                In addition, oil price manipulation designed to attack specific countries is also badly hurting Venezuela.

                • David …
                  1 June 2015 at 9:51 pm

                  Ah, nothing to do with batshit crazy economic ideas that have never worked in the past, still not working today then?

                  • Colonial Rawshark …
                    1 June 2015 at 9:56 pm

                    You’re really very glib and dismissive.

                    Current economic arrangements are finishing up in the next 20-30 years David; the thing which is really “batshit crazy” is you thinking that what we are doing now in the global economy is normal, sane and sustainable.

                    The current financial hierarchy doesn’t think twice in destroying a country of 10M or 100M people. Consider for a moment the mindset of the elites in charge who think like that.

                    As Chris Hedges said – this world has been transformed by a small cabal of human predators into a vast sea of human prey.

                    The 0.1% are going to have a very hard time of it.

    • Chooky 7.2
      1 June 2015 at 1:28 pm

      +100 adam…so where does this put Economics as a discipline?…it does seem to be rather male dominated and ‘esoteric’….and anthropocentric ( as opposed to ecologically centred)

      here is a curly one…is Economics imbued with the values of patriarchal monotheism?…( as opposed to pagan and primal religions which are Earth centred)

  8. johnm 8
    1 June 2015 at 4:58 pm

    Climate Change will screw the above economic bullshit forever. All that crap will die alleluhua! You guys are totally out of it! Have some more fuzzy get-to-gethers convince your stupid selves you have some measure of control! go for it kiwi hobbits.

    • Chooky 8.1
      1 June 2015 at 6:57 pm

      well thanx for your contribution…agree with the first part “Climate Change will screw the above economic bullshit forever”

      …but dont forget it was humble hobbits with the ring that saved the world

      (btw…do you have your survival plan/kit ready?…whats in it?).

  9. Colonial Rawshark 9
    1 June 2015 at 10:49 pm

    http://www.doomsteaddiner.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/extinction2.jpg

    BTW I think energy and resource depletion will turn our society and our economy upside down before climate change really hits its stride as a civilisation degrader

    • Robert Atack 9.1
      2 June 2015 at 8:26 am

      Back in 1999, I along with a few others thought peak oil/energy would be the death knell of this fuckedup system, but as we have been surprised to see ‘it’ is still functioning to a ‘reasonable’ degree, ie we are not quite seeing mass starvation or a real great amount of civil unrest …. yet, ignoring Greece and all the refugees I guess?
      And I thought the point we are at now with climate change would be another 25 years away, my thinking back then was, that if I had a child alive in 2040, it would be looking at a way shorter life than I had.
      One thing that hasn’t changed in all these years is the Kiwi’s ability to ignore facts.

      • Colonial Rawshark 9.1.1
        2 June 2015 at 8:31 am

        What do you mean the Titanic is going down? The bar for First Class passengers is still serving cocktails.

  10. wCoaster 10
    5 June 2015 at 8:48 am

    i agree with emission reduction , but why not use existing fossil fuels to help finance the transition ?
    There has to be some give and take on both sides of the debate..
    The West Coast relies on resources , remove these and what happens
    to the economic and social structure of the coast..

    We have large tracks of native forests which have been locked up .. (Great carbon sinks..) allow logging of these with the condition of replanting natives ie for every hectare logged 2 hectares to be planted in native trees. Of course only certain areas could be set aside for this.. We might end up with a 100 year rotation cycle but why not.. Look at finding better genotypes of Rimu, Totara, Matai, Beech for replanting. Conservation of native animals etc , could all be linked into this with funding and breeding and release ..

    Could also lead to less exotics in the future.

    What about the Phytochemicals locked up in our natives that can be used for Medicine or feedstock for Bio-transformation into drug precursors etc.
    A lost opportunity by blanket banning native timber extraction.

    For us to meet targets you have to get the mainstream on board need more ideas.
    that show a clear financial realistic path..