Envirologue: The Agony of Vanuatu and the New Climate Colonialism
105 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
...diaspora of hundreds of millions of people needing food and water.
I hear that locusts are edible...
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
But the value of the farm is based on the amount of milk produced not the profit, so they make more milk and lose more money in order to be able to sell their farm for a higher profit.
Yes, I've seen it fairly convincingly demonstrated that the real money in dairy farming is in capital gains.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Reality tends to show the error of faith based reasoning, even if it does take time, and cause unnecessary suffering, which the policies endorsed by the IPCC have demonstrably done.
Reality tends to show the error of faith based reasoning, even if it does take time, and cause unnecessary suffering, which the policies endorsed by the USA have demonstrably done.
There, fixed it for you. -
linger, in reply to
BJ: Flouridation of drinking water…
Ian: But flour and water is the basis of breadmaking!!
BJ: There you go wallpapering over my mistakes again.Yeh… I did think of commenting myself,
but was concerned it might come across as slurry. -
BenWilson, in reply to
But the value of the farm is based on the amount of milk produced not the profit, so they make more milk and lose more money in order to be able to sell their farm for a higher profit.
That would make sense for the few months the farm was on the market, but not any time that you weren't seriously thinking of selling your farm. It would also make sense if you wanted to borrow a whole lot more money. I think the latter is probably what's going on here.
ETA:
None of this makes sense to me but I am not an accountant.
Ditto to both of those.
-
Amanda Wreckonwith, in reply to
I’m saying that producers should be entirely liable for the pollution they cause in the prosecution of their business
I've no problem with producers being liable for their emissions. You previously seemed to propose that they shouldn't be allowed to pass on these costs to the consumer. Does the meat or dairy consumer have no personal responsibility for the GHG emission?
-
Amanda Wreckonwith, in reply to
Amanda – not my field of expertise so I shouldn’t really pass on half-remembered anecdote. Maybe start your Google search here.
Thanks st ephen . Always good to have a starting point.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
Does the meat or dairy consumer have no personal responsibility for the GHG emission
Desire drives demand from the damned
& the guardianship of sequestered energy...
In an ideal resource management environment everyone at every step from grower through to consumer would be responsible for best practice and minimising, if not eliminating, waste. Each absorbing and reflecting any and all consequential costs.
Including some of the biggest wasters, distribution and supermarkets, over-enthusiastic shoppers aside...a procession of processes proceeds on the proceeeds
as it progresses through prince and proletarian alike; - )
-
Inertia drives demand from the damned
& the guardianship of sequestered Gravity...Gravity causes the phenomenon of natural precession (precession not using a man-made forcing torque). It is common knowledge that a spinning precessing rotor has a reduced level of inertia and angular momentum in the direction of precession while it is precessing, although that process is currently not well understood or agreed upon.
A process of precession proceeds on the precept
of probable practical principals
:-P -
:- b
Alliterative allusions aside, my perceptive pal the principal
is perpetually perturbed by the principality’s principledThe eye of a needle is the section of a sewing needle formed into a loop for pulling thread, located at the end opposite the point. These loops are often shaped like an oval or an “eye”, hence the metaphor.
Ennui froze the doomed dromedaries in the dome
as the Needlethreader class cruiser missed the eye… -
Regarding the 'climate change due to people is tosh' and 'we're wasting money on this' arguments, there is the 'most cost' counterargument.
There's a formal name for the argument, but I don't remember it right now. What you so is line up all the possibilities and add up the cost, and the cost of the consequences, if the scenario is false.
Scenario 1 - there is no climate change. Patently untrue, but it's still argued. Mitigation cost: none. Consequence cost, if false: catastrophic
Scenario 2: there is man-made climate change and we have to mitigate as much as we can: mitigation cost: high. Consequence cost: low to high, depending on the success of the mitigation.
Scenario 3: there is climate change, but not caused by people. Mitigation cost: medium to high, depending on how many flood defences you can establish, and how many people are evacuated in advance. Consequence cost: high to catastrophic.
Naturally this assumes we haven't hit the point of no return yet. If climate change is happening, we are paying any way, no matter the cause. If it is man-made, and we don't tackle the root cause, it will progress to a catastrophic result. Or would you rather spend a bit more, hopefully avoid catastrophe, or have simply stimulated the world economy if the premise is false.
It's ironic that our western economies are still geared around paying for the war, and it's easy to divert funds to new wars. But somehow it's abhorrent to divert funds to the one thing right now with the potential to catastrophically affect ALL our lives.
-
linger, in reply to
One hump or two?
It’s easier for a rich man to enter a camel... -
linger, in reply to
Same sort of cost-benefit structure as Pascal’s Wager
(though that might not be the specific case you were thinking of, since its setup specifically excludes any possibility of actual knowledge concerning the outcomes). -
BenWilson, in reply to
If it is man-made, and we don’t tackle the root cause, it will progress to a catastrophic result
I'll give you that it could progress to that. It's not certain that it would be catastrophic. If the process is very slow and doesn't involve any particularly disastrous incidents, then the consequences could be low. But they could be high too, and it's quite a risk to take.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
enter a camel…
it’s a horse with no mane…
Which brings me full circle to unjust desertifications!
(Well I was headed there, but got sidetracked,
one always gets tan gents in the desert!)I note the Government is thinking of sinking more money into the Central Plains Water (CPW) scheme in Canterbury.
The Canterbury Plains have been clearfelled twice, most recently for dairy developments, irrevocably changing local weather patterns and further straining (if not draining) already low running rivers and aquifers.
What happens when it is unprofitable or impossible to run those gargantuan gantry-style irrigators?
Will the over adulterated soils desiccate and decamp for points east, sand-blasting suburban and central Chchch? -
BenWilson, in reply to
since its setup specifically excludes any possibility of actual knowledge concerning the outcomes
No, it’s the same. If there is a heaven or hell then you will know about it after you die. All that’s excluded is foreknowledge, and we have the same situation here. But we do have science to at least give us predictions, whereas Pascal’s Wager is about something non-scientific.
ETA: Well OK, not all climate catastrophe has infinite negative values either (presumably that would be complete species extinction), so it's not quite the same cost structure. But catastrophe scenarios are nearly univerally things that we'd regret in hindsight so the decision making side of the wager is the same.
-
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
I note the Government is thinking of sinking more money into the Central Plains Water (CPW) scheme in Canterbury.
Which will explain this story:
The Government wants a mixed governance structure for Environment Canterbury (ECan), with some members elected and others appointed, it has announced.
Environment Minister Dr Nick Smith and Associate Local Government Minister Louise Upston released a discussion document on the proposal on Wednesday.
“We are proposing a mixed governance model . . . with seven members elected across Canterbury at the local elections in October 2016 and six appointed by Government,” Smith said.
“[It] enables a majority of elected representatives while ensuring continued momentum on the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and earthquake recovery work,” he said.
“We considered other options of a fully elected council and alternatives that involved substantive changes to council functions.
"Our preliminary view is that these carry too many risks given the critical stage of work on the Canterbury Water Management Strategy and the earthquake recovery.Send in the cows…
for a desperate dairy rear action! -
Rob Stowell, in reply to
a mixed governance model . . . with seven members elected across Canterbury at the local elections in October 2016 and six appointed by Government,” Smith said.
Stack the boards, with old boys jolly? It's what they're doing to universities.
Democracy is painfully inefficient, and you could lose, which is intolerable when you know you're always right.
If I was any more furious about this, I'd combust. Time for a rates revolt? "No taxation without representation" has worked before, I hear :) -
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Will the over adulterated soils desiccate and decamp for points east, sand-blasting suburban and central Chchch?
We will get, just Deserts.
;-(
(I bet you grumbled about not being able to get the camel on the bottom, as it were.)
;-) -
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Send in the cows…
for a desperate dairy rear action! -
tim,
"We used to detonate atomic bombs among the Pacific peoples"
Sorry but you lost me at sentence one: when did "we" detonate atomic bombs anywhere????
-
Amanda Wreckonwith, in reply to
Ian
In an ideal resource management environment everyone at every step from grower through to consumer would be responsible for best practice and minimising, if not eliminating, waste. Each absorbing and reflecting any and all consequential costs.
Then surely this ideal is what we should work towards - isn't that the honest way to proceed?
The present government policy has given farmers a free pass on its emissions. This has to be addressed.
But please... lets not avoid the fact that the rest of NZ is also horrendously profligate in its emissions profile. Our politics is not the only thing about us that is dirty.
I'm hoping for the day when we appreciate the GHG emission implications of every personal purchase decision - rather than the real estate value of every house in our neighbourhood. -
Scott Dunavan, in reply to
The Canterbury Plains have been clearfelled twice, most recently for dairy developments
On a cycling trip through South Canterbury last April, I was gobsmacked to see a large shelterbelt being burnt in situ, in the pouring rain, to make way for the irrigators.
Will the over adulterated soils desiccate and decamp for points east, sand-blasting suburban and central Chchch?
Ultimately, a net loess.
-
william blake, in reply to
Locusts are edible.
Only if dipped in honey. -
Ian Dalziel, in reply to
...dipped in honey
Gee, see less bee...
It's a shame about the bees...Concern over an increase in the number of bee colonies disappearing mysteriously has prompted a national survey of the bee population.
...
Great concern over bee health was held internationally, including in the United States, which had convened a national task force to address the population decline, and in Europe, which has banned some pesticides which were seen to be harming bees, Stone said.
03/07/2014
Post your response…
This topic is closed.