Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Fact and fantasy

628 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 11 12 13 14 15 26 Newer→ Last

  • Martin Lindberg, in reply to Russell Brown,

    I suspect this comes under the heading of feeding the trolls.

    Yes.

    Yes.

    Stockholm • Since Jul 2009 • 797 posts Report Reply

  • Angus Robertson,

    Oooh a climate change debate...

    I am glad we are getting out of Kyoto, because it is terrible for the planet.

    Emmission caps are terrible. Whilst some countries have succeeded in reducing emissions, they have all increased their carbon footprint by a greater amount.

    The net result of all the Emission Trading Schemes constructed under Kyoto is to make the situation much worse.

    Auckland • Since May 2007 • 984 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX, in reply to Angus Robertson,

    The net result of all the Emission Trading Schemes constructed under Kyoto is to make the situation much worse.

    The architecture is based on the financial market model so what it is likely to do is create for the planet a a GFC but based on carbon and other emmisions.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1201 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Semmens,

    Oooh a climate change debate…

    Having an opinion on Kyoto is quite different from being a climate change denier. My 2c worth is we are all dreaming if we think we will stop global warming by politely asking people to cut their standard of living and stop producing so many greenhouse gasses. Technology got us into this pickle, and the only way we'll save ourselves from a catastrophe is via technology. Carbon sequestration, space umbrellas, we had better start inventing them now.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1811 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX, in reply to mccx,

    Dude - the asnwers lie within - a majority of individuals making moderate changes in their daily routine is part of a solution.

    We need to in our lives think globally and act locally as groups and as individuals it is more than just a fancy.

    And some individuals will develop technology and systems that are less polluting and more beneficial to the environment and the use of resources.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1201 posts Report Reply

  • Angus Robertson, in reply to DeepRed,

    Bullshit, Kyoto is the biggest pile of excremental pandering to the McMansion set ever.

    How so, you ask:

    Want to take a trip to Fiji - don't worry thats not covered, because it is air travel.
    Want to remodel your home every year - don't worry thats not covered, if the materials are made overseas.
    Want a newer more fuel efficient car - don't worry thats not covered, cars are all made overseas. PS. - buy a Prius.

    Kyoto makes the Greens popular in Ponsonby, because it tells the McMansion set they can save the planet by doing nothing. Message over substance politics. If you say that climate change is the fault of the Chinese, the Indians, poor people or in NZ dirty, dirty farmers - you can get lots of votes.

    My 2c solution to climate change is a carbon tax on consumerism - on imports, fuel consumption and transport costs. Exempting exports.

    Auckland • Since May 2007 • 984 posts Report Reply

  • HenryB, in reply to mccx,

    Action on reducing emissions is not so simple as having the individuals who accept the reality of climate change changing their behaviour. The climate issue is fundamentally a social, political and technological problem. Reducing global emissions is a collective action problem. Behavioural changes will of course be a part of this, but a minority of individuals making moderate changes in their daily routine isn’t a solution. Expecting that individuals to drastically alter their lives before we take the climate issue seriously is both counter-productive and misunderstands the nature of the problem.

    Couldn't agree more. Naomi Klein speaks to the issue of `personalising' the climate change debate with Bill Moyers here.

    Palmerston North • Since Sep 2008 • 106 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to Tom Semmens,

    Carbon sequestration . . . we had better start inventing (them) now.

    Farmer Green recommends Modern Humus Farming by Friend Sykes (1959)

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 487 posts Report Reply

  • mccx, in reply to DexterX,

    a majority of individuals making moderate changes in their daily routine is part of a solution

    Well of course it's part of a solution, but in the absence of broad changes in social, political and technological frameworks a majority of individuals will not or cannot make changes that will be effective. Reworking how transportation, housing and industry (broadly, including agriculture) use energy and emit greenhouse gases is going to be necessary before people are capable and willing to make changes in their life. If someone lives in an energy inefficient house 20 kms from where they work and shop and the majority of food and goods that are available for them to consume generate significant emissions there are significant social, economic and planning barrier to them adopting low-emissions behaviours. I don't think you're wrong, I just don't think making it primarily about individual choice and responsibility is going to lead to better solutions.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2012 • 29 posts Report Reply

  • mccx, in reply to Angus Robertson,

    Kyoto was supposed to be a step toward global emissions caps that would mean countries couldn't continue to increase their carbon footprints by importing high-emissions goods without those goods facing a carbon price somewhere. That next step didn't happen because neither developing nor developed countries were willing to agree to what that global cap would look like.

    NZ not signing up for Kyoto 2 doesn't make that better, it just means it may be even longer before any global agreement on emissions caps comes into effect. The EU and Australian emissions policies may not be good, but worse than nothing? I'm skeptical about that.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2012 • 29 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to mccx,

    in the absence of broad changes in social, political and technological frameworks a majority of individuals will not or cannot make changes that will be effective.

    In this particular context "broad" means global right? Every nation.
    So we must . . . ?

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 487 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to mccx,

    Accepting that Kyoto 2 was never going to be global, and going instead for something that includes everybody would seem to be very rational.

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 487 posts Report Reply

  • DexterX, in reply to mccx,

    What are you doing about it?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 1201 posts Report Reply

  • mccx, in reply to Farmer Green,

    In this particular context “broad” means global right?

    No and yes. The point applies at any scale. A majority of Petone residents, a majority of Wellingtonians, a majority of NZers, a majority of everyone. I'd say it's most important in countries with high per capita emissions (like NZ) but the more places that enable low-emissions lifestyles the more common low-emissions lifestyles will be.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2012 • 29 posts Report Reply

  • mccx, in reply to Farmer Green,

    It's not actually an either/or. Both Australia and the EU are doing Kyoto 2 AND working toward a global agreement.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2012 • 29 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to mccx,

    We'll have to agree to disagree on that ; farmer green thinks that any agreement which did not include China and India and the US would be absolutely pointless, just as an agreement for the whole of Godzone would be merely symbolic.

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 487 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to mccx,

    Let us then see if either or both or neither of those two objectives appears achievable at the end of the current Doha talks.

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 487 posts Report Reply

  • mccx, in reply to Farmer Green,

    Which I why I said Kyoto 2 is supposed to be a step towards including everyone. NZ starting the changes to reduce emissions sooner isn't symbolic. It makes reducing more later that much easier.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2012 • 29 posts Report Reply

  • mccx, in reply to DexterX,

    What are you doing about it?

    Why? Because how much I personally do should determine how much I get to advocate for change? Like how if I pay less in taxes I should have a smaller say in government policy?

    But to play along, I cycle when and where I can, I try to make ethical consumer decisions including eating less meat and eating seasonally, and taking fewer long-distance trips that I'd like. I'm also doing a degree in a related area and have in the past been involved with community planning groups. But I also live in an inefficient flat (because it's what's here and what I can afford) and consume many of that same things other New Zealanders do.

    I can't personally change climate action any more than I can change agricultural pollution. That's enough though. This discussion is neither very on topic nor feels like it's going to do any good.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2012 • 29 posts Report Reply

  • Farmer Green, in reply to mccx,

    Getting to understand differing views is always good .
    The LWF not only managed to arrive at a consensus; they also had to overcome the urban/rural divide. And they managed , right at the outset, to desist from calling each other names. It wasn't easy but it was very worthwhile even if Government mucks it up from here.

    Lower North Island • Since Nov 2012 • 487 posts Report Reply

  • Angus Robertson, in reply to mccx,

    Emission caps are the favoured tool of the rich world, mostly post-industrial we exhibit the traits of the McMansion set, but on a global scale. Our ideal solution to climate change is have a global emission cap. We call it fair, because it is much more than fair to us. It is not fair.

    Kyoto was the prototype and Kyoto2 was the point where us rich worlders attempted to force emission caps on the world. It failed, because the industrial and pre-industrial developing world is not stupid.

    Auckland • Since May 2007 • 984 posts Report Reply

  • mccx, in reply to Angus Robertson,

    I agree that the proposed Kyoto cap levels are unfair to the developing world and that they were promoted by the developed world on the basis of domestic political feasibility. What's the developing world's solution though? I thought it was uncontroversial that a cap was needed, but that the terms of the debate were about whose cap is at what level. I have a hard time imagining how continuing growth of emissions from the developing world and significant climatic change, even if it came with technology transfer and development aid, would turn out to be a good deal for the developing world.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2012 • 29 posts Report Reply

  • Angus Robertson,

    The EU and Australian emissions policies may not be good, but worse than nothing? I'm skeptical about that.

    In isolation they are way worse than doing nothing. And if the developing world is never going to get on board with emission caps it will always be in isolation.

    Take the Prius example, emission caps are all about energy efficiency which the Prius does really well. New equipment with cutting edge technology is so favoured that existing functional plant is scrapped. This is inherently wasteful.

    Auckland • Since May 2007 • 984 posts Report Reply

  • Jimmy Southgate, in reply to Farmer Green,

    Farmer Green continues to swim in the Manawatu and has done all his life.
    Bacteriological testing of the water that he has done himself reveals that it is normally perfectly safe.

    But which part of the Manawatu river? I'd say north of Oringi would be ok, and swim & fish up that way frequently, but after the Gorge i'd be thinking twice.

    (apologies for responding 4 pages late!)

    Wellingtown • Since Nov 2006 • 100 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh,

    Toby Manhire on Dr Joy and 100% Pure:

    New Zealand's environmental record is far from being all bad. Where it is chiefly disappointing is in the trend. We are a young country, and have done too much harm in a short time.

    Beijing • Since Jan 2007 • 2157 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 11 12 13 14 15 26 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.