Hard News: A voice of reason and authority
385 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 16 Newer→ Last
-
Angus, you wrote:
We could impose carbon taxes based upon the actual carbon footprint of goods consumed in NZ. This would be local action to create impetus among local and foreign suppliers to improve their carbon efficiency. The most efficient producer having a price advantage to the consumer. This will impact positively on the world’s climate and not cost our industry much at all, because taxes do not get placed on exports. It will however require ditching Kyoto, this will be bad PRNZ's market is too small to justify anyone making an effort solely to satisfy any NZ regulations. All that your suggestion would do is eliminate foreign products, reducing competition and consumer choices and increasing prices paid by consumers. All for no benefit. There are a lot of advantages to NZ being so small, but it has its downside too. No one takes much, if any notice of anything NZ does, let alone changes their behavior as a result.
I watched that video clip Richard Llewellyn linked to on global warming. The obvious flaw in his logic (and it is really obvious) is that he assumes that the dire predictions of global doom if agw happens are true. As I understand it, in previous times the earth has been hotter than it is today with higher concentrations of CO2 and the earth and life did just fine, so that assumption is wrong. Doom might happen, it might not, we don’t know. Adding this to his presentation would make it much less compelling.
A key aspect about Kyoto Copenhagen etc. that is never discussed has to do with China’s govt. The only thing that is keeping the lid on social and political unrest in China is continued economic growth (and you have to say that the Chinese govt has done a pretty damned good job since 1979 of managing its growth). A prerequisite to that economic growth (and most economic growth) is cheap energy. In China’s case, that cheap energy is almost exclusively coal fired generation. Is the Chinese govt, a thoroughly mercenary bunch if ever there was one, going to risk their existence on the possibility that the agw dooms-dayers are correct? Forget it. Not a chance in eternity. Perhaps they will pay lip service to it at some stage, but as to an actual effort to reduce emissions, it is just never going to happen. I believe that over the last few years the annual increment in Chinese CO2 emissions is more that the UK’s total annual emissions. Without China onboard any effort to reduce emissions cannot succeed, and China will never be onboard.
Add India blowing off emissions reductions and cap and trade being DOA over here in the US, the US electoral calendar, a global economic downturn the effects of which will linger for some time, and you can see that it is best to get used to the idea that emissions reductions just aren’t going to happen. Guess those special ulcers might get an extra tweak out of that!!
-
Doom might happen, it might not, we don’t know.
James, that was the whole point of his argument!
The logic being - as we can't definitively and absolutely prove right now either way whether climate change theory is True or False, there's no point in trying to think along the rows. We have to look at the gamble we take within each column and then decide. By including the worst-case scenario in each column, you have a clear choice, and one which has no flaw. It's logic - and it doesn't depend on whether or not you think the world has been hotter in the past. All it requires is that you compare both worst-case scenarios.
-
Without China onboard any effort to reduce emissions cannot succeed, and China will never be onboard.
China may have a different social system to us but their scientists are constrained by the same truths as any scientist. As far as I understand 11 of the world's 15 largest cities are on the coast or estuaries and one of them is Beijing and the others are chinese trading partners.
A change in sea levels from melting ice caps and the flooding that will follow will be the end of their idea of a brave new economic world.
It's commonsense not to pollute, it has no long term benefits.
-
Without China onboard any effort to reduce emissions cannot succeed, and China will never be onboard.
You suppose an awful lot. The Chinese govt see's itself as playing catchup with the western world and will use coal to lift economic growth, changing to cleaner technologies as and when they see fit.
And China has some really good technologies in renewables, but It will be hard to give China a hurry up if things turn ugly.But as Romeo Void sez "Never say Never"
-
To be charitable to James and focus on the underlying flaw in his argument, I think he mis-stated his concern as one of logic (then contradicted himself with the quote selected by ww), when really it's one of disagreement on the premise that the worst case scenario on the do-nothing side is heaps worse than the odd spot of financial bother if the world takes action.
The obvious flaw in his logic (and it is really obvious) is that he assumes that the dire predictions of global doom if agw happens are true. As I understand it, in previous times the earth has been hotter than it is today with higher concentrations of CO2 and the earth and life did just fine, so that assumption is wrong.
To the extent that James is looking back at all to those halcyon days of higher temperatures when life did just fine, he's looking from a safe distance of tens and hundreds of millions of years, or perhaps a mere 125,000 years.
Global and regional extinctions of species, population reductions of 99.99%? In the long-run, it doesn't matter, the survivors thrived and since then life has evolved and ecology redeveloped many times over, adapting to the changing circumstances. So all is sweet?
But on the human time-frames meaningful on the personal and societal scales of our species let alone all the others - years and centuries say - the worst case scenario of living through those times of changing and high temperatures would surely be many dimensions of catastrophic.
-
Seriously though, I was watching Fox the other day (in Pittsburgh, PA), when on came this ad:
I can't believe a generation can call themselves "the greatest generation" without throwing up. That is just absurd ego. There is an idea out there that the world was created by and for one generation. We have lost our community goals in a blaze of new consumption and new fears. Tribal elders should be leaders not fearful frail isolated individuals fearing painful unheralded deaths.
-
I think we can grade Auckland Grammar and Kelston principals John Morris and Steve Watt F for epic fail.
Couldn't agree more Craig. There's also a certain irony in all this that Mr Johnny Morris is in fact an Old Boy AND ex-teacher from Kelston Boys.
And Steve Watt used to teach at Grammar. Incestuous bunch, those self-consciously 'elite-school' teachers.
-
Without China onboard any effort to reduce emissions cannot succeed, and China will never be onboard.
Anyone want to start ticking off the areas where the Chinese government should not be setting the baseline you work off? Maori Television -- you have the starter for ten...
-
and China will never be onboard.
I see what may be a pattern in James Bremner's thinking here - a difficulty with time, of how things change with time.
China may take longer to come on board than the US, but circumstances change, it will get there, if not ideally soon, then perhaps soon enough. China is also more vulnerable than many countries to catastrophic effects.
-
Seriously though, I was watching Fox the other day (in Pittsburgh, PA), when on came this ad:
I do despair.
As I understand it, in previous times the earth has been hotter than it is today with higher concentrations of CO2 and the earth and life did just fine, so that assumption is wrong.
James, if you could put this hat on and go sit in the corner facing the wall? Cheers.
-
Life does just fine at the edge of undersea thermal vents.
-
I have a (possibly masochistic) desire to find out how James feels about the USA's healthcare debate. He's originally from NZ (right?), so he knows from experience that universal healthcare is not actually The Great Satan, but he usually sides with the Republicans on most issues. How are his two halves reconciled?
-
Incestuous bunch, those self-consciously 'elite-school' teachers.
Just to clarify, Kelston Boys may have a good rugby team, but it's not regarded as an "elite school". (sorry if this offends any Kelston Old Boys)
-
James,
NZ's market is too small to justify anyone making an effort solely to satisfy any NZ regulations.
Assume I was talking about the royal anglospherical "we" - NZ, Australia, Canada, USA. Consumer societies that have yet to dead end themselves into EU styled ETS bull pucky.
-
Just to clarify, Kelston Boys may have a good rugby team, but it's not regarded as an "elite school". (sorry if this offends any Kelston Old Boys)
Indeed -- and that's a de-rail from two principals who, in my opinion, are still acting like dickheads and really need to STFU and stop acting like textbook enablers in public.
-
China will never be onboard.
James is right about this.
Forget all the platitudes about it being in their own best enviromental interests and try thinking about it from the Chinese perspective.
On a purely economic basis. The Chinese produce 3.9 tonnes of carbon dioxide per capita, the British produce 9.7 and the world average (which needs to be halved eventually) is 4.2. The British have US$36,500 per capita GDP and the Chinese US$5,900. Under a global ETS the Chinese would need to purchase 1/4 as many credits with 1/6 as much capital as the Poms. That means purest economic suicide for the Chinese irregardless of the amount of clean tech available and is quite unfair.
On a social basis it is grossly unfair, because the West has been polluting for 200 years and we have the data to prove that this has caused climate change. During that 200 years the West has accumulated great wealth. The Chinese do know this in great detail, they aren't stupid. Now today some Westerners (the EU and apparently most of the Western left) come up with a plan to spread the burden of climate change evenly across the whole world through a global ETS.
Hmmm, exploitative much? The West craps out pollution for 200 years and then suddenly its China's fault for not coming on board with the "solution" - when the "solution" being offered is an ETS. China (& India & Brazil & Indonesia & Malayisia) are about to deliver the West a politely worded, discreetly, diplomatically put FUCK OFF on the ETS idea.
Lets move past the misguided ETS concept and find something workable.
-
- thanks so much for the link to "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See" - I cannot believe I've never seen it before. Completely brilliant.
Now I'll have to see if I can find a climate change sceptic to try it out on.Well, the usual suspect turned up, Bremner that is and I don't necessarily disagree with some of what he says... for a change.
The fact is that I don't believe the cause of the supposed global warming is human.
We need less crap in our atmosphere yes. We need less crap anywhere on our planet and there is nothing wrong in doing better. Problem is, as James alluded to, we here in NZ can cut back emissions, spend billions on climate change solutions and still the world could go to hell in a handbasket.
Why? OK let us see.
If the increase in CO2 is persistent, regardless of our globally insignificant decrease in output, we will, or our grandchildren will, be faced with a world with more CO2 than we have now. So what? The models are not reliable enough to give us a picture of the actual effects so why would a profit driven world give a danm? Oh yeah, Carbon Credits, what a scam.
The developing world has nothing to gain in "playing the game". Many of the people in the under developed world have little expectancy of a better life without full ahead development so why should they put the breaks on their future for the sake of a bunch of middle class white people? Any "savings made by little New Zealand fade into nothing besides that fact.
Natural events create more CO2 than Humans so once again, Any "savings" made by little New Zealand fade into nothing beside that fact.
We, as a race (human that is) have survived worse conditions in the past with little or no technology, if the worst comes to the worst then we will survive and live in a way that would be seen as luxury by many in the third world.
The more I think about the problem and its solutions the more I see a corrupt western world squeezing the last drops of resources from the poor and then getting the underdog pay for the gluttony of the perpetrators.
Ask a refugee of war or a family starving due to crop failure if they are worried about Global Warming.
Greed, as always, is the problem. If we spent more time and effort eliminating poverty instead of telling frightening stories about how the middle class will suffer then the "problem" of Global warming will become as insignificant as our contribution to its elimination. -
Off topic -
National are now officially a Pain in the Neck.The economy is on a down turn and people are short of cash, so ACC have decided to deny treatment to the poor.
Another killer (possibly literally) is the movement in Christchurch of the Sensitive Claims area to Belfast. That's the geographic equivalant of moving from Wellington to Masterton.
Many of these people aren't functioning well enough to catch the bus to Belfast. Result was a massive drop in barely coping claimants. They just hang out in Latimer Square, behind the central ACC office in Oxford Tce. -
On topic - The PM's Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman interviewed over extended period this morning on Nine to Noon this morning, seemed to me very solid, a voice of reason and authority really. Not much on global climate change, but plenty else.
-
Well, the usual suspect turned up, Bremner that is and I don't necessarily disagree with some of what he says... for a change.
Yeah it is funny eh?
The majority of the local PA leftist crowd want a global market in carbon pollution credits. Even though it will be open to private investment & thus manipulation by Western multinationals. Even though it will privilege (on the basis of pre-existing wealth) access to something as base as air, allowing the rich to exploit the poor wholeheartedly.
Conversely the libertarian James is against that market being created.
The world truly is about to end.
-
The world truly is about to end.
Damn.
Cyanobacteria - blue green algae - had an unparalleled two billion year run as the crown of creation, eventually undone by their waste product, the toxic and unstable (for them) free oxygen. It's an ill wind that blows no species any good. All we asked for was another few millenia atop the evolutionary tree before passing the baton to our CO2-loving overlords, whatever they might be.
-
Ask... a family starving due to crop failure if they are worried about Global Warming
If the weather is so screwed up they can't predict the seasons anymore, they may feel there is some relevance.
Much as I'm interested in the global economic arguments, I just can't get past the "I don't believe the cause of the supposed global warming is human". It makes me think we have little to say to each other.
-
Ask a refugee of war or a family starving due to crop failure if they are worried about Global Warming.
Apart from the obvious fact that crop failure is often linked to global climate change, you can often link war and civil war to environmental issues, particularly water, but also food.
-
you can often link war and civil war to environmental issues, particularly water, but also food.
That also applies to any form of dire resource depletion.
-
I've been reading Lester R Brown & Plan B 2.0.
He talks about failed states economies & ecologies, so environmental refugees.
What I didn't see coming was the Somali Pirates as a result of Industrial Fishing & the resulting fisheries collapse. Makes sense and follows the failed state but transfers it to the sea.
It's gonna get real hairy when they get hold of planes and divert air traffic :(
Post your response…
This topic is closed.