When Earth’s future is under attack …

36 comments on “When Earth’s future is under attack … ”

• Comments are now closed

1. 808state 1

   3 June 2017 at 9:52 am

   “Trump is becoming a caricature of all that is wrong with right wing politics.”

   No, he is a symbol of all that is wrong with Globalist politics, an “every reaction has an opposite and equal reaction” kind of phenomena.
2. saveNZ 2

   3 June 2017 at 9:59 am

   In the meantime when Earth’s future is under attack… the National Party has prepared the welcome mat for NZ to be a foot soldier in the assult.
3. marty mars 3

   3 June 2017 at 9:59 am

   I wish I was in this protest – I hope the message gets through loud and clear and tillerson that oil and vlad loving most senior trumpee decide never to come back here.
   • Anne 3.1

     3 June 2017 at 10:45 am

     I wish I was in this protest.
     Me too. I would come out of a lengthy protest retirement to be present at this one but I don’t live in Wellington. I hope many thousands turn out because this is a once in a life-time opportunity for NZers to gain international recognition for their strong stance on the environment and Climate Change in particular.

     We led the world in the 1980s with out anti-nuclear stance. We can do it again.
     • marty mars 3.1.1

       3 June 2017 at 11:19 am

       Yep I well remember the tour protests in welly – those marches were great.
4. BM 4

   3 June 2017 at 10:11 am

   The problem is Christianity and low information voters, facts are the vast majority of Americans just don’t know or care about anything that goes on outside their state.

   I’d bet money 95% of Americans haven’t even heard of the Paris accord.
   • weka 4.1

     3 June 2017 at 10:21 am

     “The problem is Christianity and low information voters”

     That doesn’t explain your resistance to change though BM.
   • RedLogix 4.2

     3 June 2017 at 10:28 am

     Yes … while the huge majority of Americans I’ve worked with over the years are usually warm, generous and friendly people, with rare exceptions they do tend to be very possessed by the “America the Great” myth and quite incurious of anything outside of the USA.
     • 808state 4.2.1

       3 June 2017 at 10:39 am

       I agree, I find Americans I have worked and socialised with easy going and open – they take a cut and thrust approach to every issue which works most of the time. They are conscious of anti-American sentiment, and can become cagey if they suspect you of it.
     • BM 4.2.2

       3 June 2017 at 10:41 am

       My partner works for an outfit that has staff regularly travelling to America on business

       With all the stuff going on in with Trump and what we read in our media, you’d think America was on the cusp of a major civil breakdown.

       The reality is slightly different though, not a sound, no discussion or interest, politics is never mentioned, when one of the guys did actually raise the topic of Trump most thought he seemed to be doing a good job.

       Sport, family, church, love for the USA if it’s not one of those topics you’re wasting your time.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.2.1

         3 June 2017 at 6:51 pm

         That explains the Dead Kennedys. No, wait…
     • UncookedSelachimorpha 4.2.3

       3 June 2017 at 11:33 am

       And the Americans us NZers are likely to encounter are the ones who get out of the states (or at least mix with foreigners) more than 99% of the US population.
5. Ad 5

   3 June 2017 at 11:01 am

   Even Tillerson’s old employer – the world’s largest publicly traded oil behemoth and a company that potentially has much to gain from relaxed environmental standards – doesn’t appear to be on board with the Paris pullout. The majority of Exxon shareholders voted Wednesday in support of a new transparency standard that would require the company to disclose how climate change affects its business operations.

   The resolution reportedly drew support from shareholders of all sizes, including big-name investors like BlackRock and Vanguard. It passed with more than 62 percent of shareholders in favor of the increased disclosure requirements – which mirror certain details in the Paris accord related to restrictions on global temperature increases.

   Just a year ago, only 38 percent of shareholders voted in support of the resolution.

   With Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Duke, Dominion and other major oil producers all willing to support the Paris Climate Change agreement, one has to wonder what’s in it for them?

   The optimist in me says that the oil producers will continue to read the global floor in oil prices as the biggest possible long term market signal to change from petroleum production to renewable energy production.

   The pessimist in me says these companies-larger-than-most-countries would rather support a non-binding agreement than something harder to deal with like a really high globally traded carbon market.

   I resolutely prefer at this moment to be optimistic.
   • Bill 5.1

     3 June 2017 at 1:34 pm

     if they’d called for transparency on how their business affects/causes/drives global warming and climate change, then I’d have seen a point to it. But to call for transparency on how they are biting their own arse… Paris = 3.5 degrees C or some such with the US on board and all pledges met btw.

     There is no “long term if we’re talking about AGW, therefore any talk of a “long term market signal” is bunk, as is any talk of shifting from petroleum production to renewable energy production. We can’t build our way out of this Ad.

     I do agree with your optimism though.

     Read the banner in the picture that accompanies the post. And reflect that a few short year ago, that sentiment would have been seen as lunatic and nutty. Now it’s not only thinkable, but it can be expressed openly.
     • weka 5.1.1

       3 June 2017 at 2:07 pm

       Have to say the response from various parts of humanity and power structures in the past couple of days has bumped my hope up a notch. Best we take advantage of the opportunity.
     • Robert Glennie 5.1.2

       3 June 2017 at 2:53 pm

       To have 30 states disagree with Trump is quite something. See B1 of today’s “The Press”.
6. Draco T Bastard 6

   3 June 2017 at 2:36 pm

   Concerned
7. Draco T Bastard 7

   3 June 2017 at 2:42 pm

   Some people have suggested that Trump pulling America out of the Paris Accord may not be such a bad thing. It may actually spur worldwide action into dealing with this most difficult of problems. I hope they are right. But Trump could do a lot of damage. It will be a case of how backward America goes compares to how much more action the rest of the world takes.

   No, it won’t be a case of how far backward the USA goes – it will be about how well the rest of the world reacts to the USA’s attack on it. The only viable option they have is to cut off the USA but will they do it or will they keep up the failed super-hero worship that they’ve built up for the USA over the last few decades?
   • Poission 7.1

     3 June 2017 at 2:53 pm

     ghg for the US decreased by 11.5% 2005-2015 due to locked in technological change such as combined cycle gas generation.A statement from DT will not cause any immeasurable change.

     https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks
     • Draco T Bastard 7.1.1

       3 June 2017 at 3:00 pm

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_greenhouse_gas_emissions

       That’s great but will it continue if the federal government stops supporting it and ramps up support for more GHG emission industries?

       I think we will find that unlikely.
8. Robert Glennie 8

   3 June 2017 at 2:49 pm

   https://willnewzealandberight.com/2017/06/02/climate-change-gases-also-attacking-the-oceans/

   The gases linked to climate change are also linked to acidification of the oceans and worsening bleaching of coral reefs. Are we go in to address that as well?
   • 808state 8.1

     3 June 2017 at 4:03 pm

     Yeah, there was a nzherald article a few days ago saying it was basically over for the Great Barrier Reef, 90%+ of it already showing heat stress symptoms – “bleaching”. Only thing to do is manage it and hope pockets survive. Depressing.
9. 808state 9

   3 June 2017 at 4:05 pm

   All the Hollywood types and other rich Yanks denouncing Trumps decision while cavorting around the world on private jets are getting on my nerves.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1

     3 June 2017 at 4:10 pm

     It’s a tempting thought process: right wingers employ it all the time.

     “How environmentally friendly is your computer?” they’ll ask accusingly of anyone who points out some sensible changes we could make to our energy consumption habits.

     Worth recognising and avoiding, if you want to “change more than your clothes”, that is.
     • Bill 9.1.1

       3 June 2017 at 5:19 pm

       There’s a world of difference (literally) between owning a computer that uses electricity and has its own carbon footprint embedded, and having a carbon footprint that’s 7000 or 9000 times that of the world’s poorer people.

       And top Holywood actors (eg – DiCaprio) have that kind of footprint – as do many, many “rich Yanks” with their private jets, yachts and endless globe trotting for some ‘important’ business or other.
       • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.1.1

         3 June 2017 at 5:32 pm

         Nonetheless, US carbon emissions have declined to 1991 levels, which is far better than we’ve managed.

         Like religion, carbon footprint is pretty much an accident of birth. I don’t think blame is useful.
         • Bill 9.1.1.1.1

           3 June 2017 at 5:46 pm

           That’s an utterly pointless stat, as I’d have thought you’d be aware of. The US and others have ‘off-shored’ their emissions by moving production to China or wherever.

           A large carbon footprint is not an accident of birth beyond what we might call ‘the background carbon’ of the society that’s born into. Large carbon footprints track large incomes and the lifestyles that go with with those large incomes.

           Did you not bother to read any of the posts containing the info about end-user emissions that point to a 10/40/50 breakdown of carbon emissions? Maybe you should.

           Then come back and argue about how it’s all an ‘accident of birth’ and how everyone’s blameless.
           • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1.1.1.1.1

             3 June 2017 at 6:10 pm

             As I’ve consistently argued, wealth is delivered by good fortune, as poverty is by bad luck. Yes, the lifestyle predicts the footprint, and both are accidents of birth.

             I didn’t say everyone is blameless, I said that blame is useless. If this plain English is still unclear please ask questions rather than making hostile assumptions.

             The 10/40/50 breakdown illustrates the facts; if you want to use it as a tool for blame go ahead, I won’t stop you. All that blame will still be useless though.
             • Bill …

               3 June 2017 at 6:22 pm

               Do you do chicken gut readings of this world determined by “luck” and “fortune”?

               Wealth and poverty are both systemic outcomes. Luck and fortune only play the minor role of possibly dropping you into a family in a culture that has inheritable inter-generational wealth…which – systemic outcomes give rise to in the first place.

               Note: the above assumes the ludicrous notion that a new born is a pre-determined and complete identity needing only food, shelter and water: that identity is not an ever changing and somewhat elusive effect of environment.
               • One Anonymous Bloke …

                 3 June 2017 at 6:35 pm

                 an ever changing and somewhat elusive effect of environment.

                 Sure, so accidents of birth can be affected by accidents of environment, which affects the point not one bit.

                 If wealth and poverty and carbon footprints are systemic outcomes, and I think they are, what use is blame in changing that system?
                 • Bill …

                   3 June 2017 at 7:13 pm

                   Well, you reject a system and sanction those who would otherwise use it to excuse their actions. Both these things happen in conjunction with one another.

                   It’s a matter of fact that rich fucks are killing off this biosphere. I don’t want them ‘blamed’, I want them stopped.
   • Ad 9.2

     3 June 2017 at 5:09 pm

     Because you’re not entitled to have an opinion unless you live in a straw hut with black teeth wearing a sack and can recite the entire script to the Four Yorkshiremen sketch.
10. timeforacupoftea 10

    3 June 2017 at 5:57 pm

    great.
    I will bring my oil fogger, should be fun.
11. Michael 11

    4 June 2017 at 12:02 am

    IIRC, the Washington Post reports that Tillerson (and Ivanka Trump) actually argued against pulling out of the Paris Treaty. Of course, in the case of the former, that may have been a tactical move, to save him from an even rougher time in Aotearora-NZ. However, it may also be the case that Tillerson is not a total, raw-meat chewing Neanderthal but actually has a degree of subtlety and nuance that distinguishes from his boss. It might be a good idea if we don’t treat Tillerson as Satan’s emissary next week.
12. mosa 12

    4 June 2017 at 12:51 am

    Prediction number one -any protest against Tillerson won’t feature much in the 6pm propaganda bulletins.

    Prediction number two- Andrew Little won’t be in taking part in the protest march.

Links to post

1. Nature issues statement saying climate change cannot be negotiated with « The Standard: posted on 5 June 2017 at 7:03 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS