Is the main course coming back to life?
The fact that NZ contributes just 0.2% of global greenhouse gas emissions is often used as an argument for us to do nothing about reducing our emissions. For example, today in the SST Raybon Kan, tongue-in-cheek, sums it up:
Let’s get some perspective. If global warming is a crime, our prints are nowhere near the scene. New Zealand is not responsible for climate change. We are tiny… As a country, probably our largest use of emissions was getting our representatives to Kyoto… We are a tiny log cabin in an organic paddock, on the other side of the world from a Manhattan of fuming smoke stacks, yet here we are, rationing out CO2 by the shot glass, when all around, the real culprits are erupting CO2 like Vesuvius. You bet the planet’s warming up. But don’t point the finger at me. I hardly emit at all. I don’t even go to the gym because I don’t like to breathe out all that CO2. And when I travel internationally, I only go on planes that are already headed there anyway. It’s like being the only vegetarian at the banquet. Eat up. The main course isn’t coming back to life.
Now, let’s consider that relative foot-print for a second. And let’s leave aside the obvious advantage of moral weight that doing something ourselves would have in convincing the big feet to tip-toe.
The argument goes: we have a relatively small carbon footprint, just 0.2% of global emissions, so we need do nothing about it. Does it then follow that because we are the only home to 0.6% of the world’s bird species, it doesn’t matter if they go extinct? Or our NZ$389 million in Development Aid is worthless because it is only 0.25% of the OECD’s Aid? Or, our paltry 0.06% of the world’s population mean human rights here are irrelevant.
Our ozone-depleting gas emissions are probably of a similar relative size, but I’ve yet to hear the ‘we’re insignificant’ argument used about reducing them. Perhaps it is because it’s us getting the melanomas; whereas with Climate Change, it’s others who will bear the brunt. After all, we may be able to grow kiwifruit in Dunedin…
It’s also worth remembering that our per capita emissions are many times those of some of the larger emitters - perhaps even seven times as much as China. Our per capita emissions are about 3 times the global average.
Let’s get some perspective alright, and preferably a “think global, act local” one…
September 23rd, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Nice perspective Russel. I think that I should stop having showers because I have no sense of smell and I’ll be much less stinky than the other stinky 4.2 million people anyway. So what happened in Montreal? Did the world decide not to worry about the ozone layer because it really wasn’t that important compared to climate change? Will NZ continue to be allowed to spew out methyl bromide in relatively huge quantities while suffering one of the higher levels of skin cancer in the world? I’ll bet the govt fought tooth and nail to keep spewing the methyl bromide, in order to protect our ‘competitiveness’. Just like they fought hard at APEC to get a firm cap on emissions. Yeah right!
September 23rd, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Yes - the argument that NZ is only an insignificant part of ‘the problem’ doesn’t really add up to the idea that the country shouldn’t therefore do anything. But the argument is very important for putting it all in context and for deciding on the appropriate measures.
More importantly, however, is the question of whether Labour’s market-based climate change package is actually significant enough to deal with the problem. If it is true that the problem is so enormous (as the Greens are always telling us), how is such a pitiful scheme as the proposed one going to totally turn things around? It seems that Labour, National and Greens have come up with a pretty weak (and basically neoliberal) climate change ’solution’ that stands to make stuff all difference. Don’t you guys have any bigger ideas?
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:44 pm
All well and good Russ but can you please tell me what difference we will make to climate change should we be stupid enough to destroy our economy by embracing some of the more radical ideas I have read on this site.
It is worth reminding you and others that there is no conclusive proof that climate change is man made, it is madness to destroy our way of life for something that more than likely has nothing to do with our actions, once again it begs the question….. what is the hidden agenda?
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:44 pm
censored again?..are climate change deniers banned from this blog?
September 23rd, 2007 at 7:45 pm
test
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Finlay MacDonald also deals very nicely with the Green/Labour/National market-based climate change ’solution’ in the Sunday Star-Times today. He argues that the ETS is just neoliberal economics applied to the environment. It still seems bizarre that anyone purporting to be on the left could fall for this voodoo economic claptrap. See:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4211542a22678.html
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
September 23rd, 2007 at 9:32 pm
Now, let’s consider that relative foot-print for a second. And let’s leave aside the obvious advantage of moral weight that doing something ourselves would have in convincing the big feet to tip-toe.
If only Al Gore thought as you did, and could put a little effort into reducing his own personal emissions.
September 23rd, 2007 at 11:22 pm
Would the people who argue that we have a relatively small carbon footprint, just 0.2% of global emissions, so we need do nothing about it also argue the same logic for not honouring the ANZACs on ANZAC Day? They could argue that because New Zealanders only accounted for 0.1% of casualties during both world wars our contribution was insignificant and hardly worthy of commemoration or celebration. But they don’t make that argument because it ignores the high per capita sacrifice made by New Zealanders. It is that high willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice for freedom that ANZAC Day actually celebrates. ANZAC Day also serves the vital purpose of reminding us why these wars were started, lest we forget the lessons of history.
September 24th, 2007 at 7:58 am
the greens to support the ‘testing’/prosecution of pot-smokers who drive…?
so..this is why there is no support/agitation/movement on the medical marijuana bill..?..eh..?
you lot have really gone over to the dark side..!..?
i cannot feckin’ believe this..!
first the election finance bill..!
and now..another exercise in repression/repressive legislation..
for shame..!
and you are dog-tucker..!..come next election..!
eh..?
and..’all your own work..!’..eh..?
http://whoar.co.nz/2007/green-party-to-support-brethalysingprosecuting -drivers-who-have-smoked-potand-their-reasoning-for-thisgreen-mp-metir ia-turei-said-if-the-aim-of-the-bill-was-to-get-unsafe-drivers-off-the -road-then-the/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 24th, 2007 at 8:17 am
and i’d like to say..
i have warned of the white-anting of nandor to get him to resign from parliament..
i now feel he should resign from the green party/leave..
on a matter of principle/as a reaction to this (even more) advancement of police/state powers over our lives..
hideous legislation eroding our privacies/rights..
enthusuastically fostered/pushed by the green party..(!)
un-feckin’-believe-able..!
nandor should resign..
let norman take his seat..
let everyone see the ‘realities’ of norman..eh..?
then watch their polling plummet towards zero..
and then..after the greens crash and burn at the next election..
he should step forward as a possible leader of the new green party that will rise from these ashes..
when this ‘alliance-refugee’/opportunistic mob are swept away..
…both in the tides/changes wrought by history..
but also..mainly for their inactions in all the right places..
and their actions in all the wrong places..
(the greens would do well to heed/remember the warning english gave national on the weekend..
(english was explaining his disasterous election result when he led national)
“if people run out of reasons to vote for you..your vote will collapse..”
and with this revelation of your plans for even more repressive laws against pot..
and your support of the ‘draconian’ election finance bill’..
you’ve pretty much ‘done the deed’..eh..?
killed off any/all reasons..
for many of your formers supporters..
to ever vote for you again..
eh..?
go now nandor..!
or you’ll sink with/be ‘tarred’ by..any ongoing association with this repudiation of what many of us thought the green party was about..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 24th, 2007 at 8:29 am
correction:..”english gave labour”..not national..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 24th, 2007 at 10:20 am
“New Zealand is not responsible for climate change. We are tiny… As a country, probably our largest use of emissions was getting our representatives to Kyoto…”
If you divided China into X countries same population as ours we would stand out.
September 24th, 2007 at 10:51 am
Cap and Trade is much worse for neo-liberals than a carbon tax.
A carbon tax is a predictable fee that can JUST BE PAID.
This is why the right wing *love* pigovian taxes.
But cap and trade the price is not predictable and the limits are harder to overcome.
It has much more leverage than pigovian taxes so beloved by right wing economists.
W
September 24th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Let’s get some perspective alright, and preferably a “think global, act local� one…
…not to be confused with “think local, act local”. Capping local emissions on the basis of historical records or aspiring to carbon neutrallity for New Zealand are local solutions to local issues that may in fact be detrimental. If what we do “locally” encourages an increase “globally” of AGW this is bad.
And let’s leave aside the obvious advantage of moral weight that doing something ourselves would have in convincing the big feet to tip-toe.
Let’s not. Imagine there were a small bunch of people who lived in a country with abundant space, plentiful renewable resources and producing a good proportion of the world’s food with relative efficiency (sound familiar?). Supposing these people decided to become carbon neutral, decry the use of nuclear alternatives and remove food producing land from production. The food production would (by neccessity) be moved to other less carbon efficient places and perhaps require a greater global emission of carbon. Would these people be seen as making a marvellous (although relatively slight) moral sacrifice or as self-absorbed arrogant pricks taking advantage of their own fortunate circumstances preaching false morals of overbearing smugness?
If you divided China into X countries same population as ours…
there would 350 small China’s of which 330 would never be able to achieve carbon neutrallity in anyway similar to what we could. What good any ‘moral weight’ of ours?
September 24th, 2007 at 12:22 pm
To me, it ultimately comes down to the moral argument. Those business-as-usual stalwarts who argue our impotency until they are blue in the face miss the fact that we cannot realistically expect other nations to curb their own emissions in a manner which we are unwilling to undertake ourselves.
Furthermore, those who believe that any action taken by New Zealand will have no effect on the world at large are sorely mistaken. While we can’t really class ourselves as ‘early adopters,’ we can still be seen as a petri dish for the world at large, to demonstrate that effective change can be made and implemented at a regulatory level. And whilst I personally don’t believe that the new framework goes far enough, I’m proud that we have a reasonably encompassing approach, broad cross-party backing, and the potential to do even more in the future.
DenMT
September 24th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
big bro Says:
“It is worth reminding you and others that there is no conclusive proof that climate change is man made…….”
————————————————————————————-
I think it is worth pointing out to those like Big Bro that, even if there is any LIKELYHOOD of climate change, this needs to be taken very seriously. If the predictions are true, then in the next 50 to 100 or so years, sea levels are going to rise several metres (at worst). Even if the sea rises by one metre, there are going to be very serious consequences. It is being said that the Artic ice shelf is breaking up and at point of collapse.
If sea levels rise Big bro, then your grandchildren are going to see the entire Wellington CBD permanently flooded, Petone will be under water, estimated at far up the Hutt Valley as Avalon, and all other low lying areas near the Coast under water. And this event will be global - leaving downtown Manhattan New York, London and other cities flooded as in Wellington. And all of this could lead to a global famine as the food chain is destroyed or curtailed.
What a lovely legacy to leave for future generations!!.
September 24th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
WuW
There has always been climate change, what you expect the rest of us to believe is that it is caused by man when there is NO PROOF of that.
September 24th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
my family is critical pragmatic fwwog,
we get dividend from them China coal fire ,
and we green in NZ,
what do yous think,
September 24th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
You mean we buy and they produce (with coal smoke)… but then all we have to sell is land
September 25th, 2007 at 8:32 am
phil u Says:
September 24th, 2007 at 8:17 am
“when this ‘alliance-refugee’/opportunistic mob are swept away..”
They are hindering mainstream support.
jh
September 29th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Many of the ideas for reducing AGW gases would strengthen our economy rather than weaken it. These include encouraging solar water heating, improved insulation, more wind and marine power generation, encouragement of electric or hybrid vehicles, etc.
The cost of importing energy will rise. Any steps that we take that reduce our dependence on importing energy will strengthen the economy.
Trevor.
September 29th, 2007 at 7:05 pm
Trevor
Sorry old chap but that is absolute rubbish, any benefits that MAY come from what you suggest will be totally wiped out by the punitive and draconian taxes Labour and the Greens are going to impose on us.
Our economy is export driven, we are further away from the world markets than anybody else and can LEAST afford these feel good taxes, never forget we produce 0.2 of the world emissions yet we are being conned into believing our efforts will make a difference.
They will make a difference all right, the economy will crumble the state will become all powerful as more and more kiwi’s depend on the govt for their income and the communists and socialists will finally have what they want.
September 29th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
bb, Chap by the name of Einstein claims that e=mc squared. If he’s right then so is Trevor and those benefits WILL happen. But this Einstein chappy is one of them academic theory wallahs so he’s probably completely out of touch with the real world. Any free market economist can prove that e can’t possibly equal mc squared because e is infinite. Otherwise there would have to limits to GDP growth, and that simply aint so.
September 29th, 2007 at 10:24 pm
I see BB is off on his broken record speech again. blah blah blah you are so boring.
as has been pointed out to you so many times it is not funny, the greens do not have a policy to raise taxes, our polices are revenue neutral, so that rises in pollution taxes are offset by reductions in personal taxes.
I can only assume that either you are totally and utterly forgetful, or you like to willfully misrepresent the Greens policy in print.
September 30th, 2007 at 11:50 am
So BB, which proposed tax would apply to the benefits of installing better insulation or solar water heating? A capital-gains tax perhaps, but wouldn’t they be capital investments and therefore deductable?
And not so much of the “old” if you don’t mind
Trevor.
September 30th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
Stuey
I simply do not believe that the Green party will not raise taxes, all the evidence suggests that they will, the background of most of the MP’s would suggest they will and the hard left socialist agenda of the party suggests they will.
When you have this much evidence it is difficult to believe that they Greens will not raise taxes, you should understand this better than most as this is the same logic the Greens use to push the Global warming con.
When I hear either of the co-leaders (BTW, why is one of your leaders doing all the talking lately while other remains silent?) come out and say that they will give middle and upper income people a tax cut to compensate for these new punitive and economy wrecking taxes I will believe it.
September 30th, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Stuey I did reply but once again frogblog is not allowing free speech.
September 30th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
Um, no BB!!
Give lower and middle income people a tax cut. There’s no point in giving upper income people one. Ther are already doing rather well, and have the capacity to avoid tax through tax-loss making property investment anyway.
Mind you, might be lookling to change that!
September 30th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
Stuey says,
“the greens do not have a policy to raise taxes, our polices are revenue neutral, so that rises in pollution taxes are offset by reductions in personal taxes.
toad says
“Mind you, might be lookling to change that!”
flippy floppy ??
Stuey’s version would see the massive surplusses returned to the masses while toads wants to raise taxes while maintaining the massive surplusses?
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
toad says,
“There’s no point in giving upper income people one. Ther are already doing rather well, and have the capacity to avoid tax through tax-loss making property investment anyway.”
Highr income earners structure their property investments as a loss making business from which they claim tax write off against their more profitable businesses The do not need a LAQC. Only the middle class wage and salary earners have LAQC’s to offset their losses against wages and salaries.
Would need a massive strutural change in tax law to get at the upper income people.
Get up to speed toad.
September 30th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
So let me get this right…
BB says that draconian taxes will prevent any benefit from more wind and marine power sources strengthening our economy. Given that most of our electricity generation is by various State-Owned Enterprises, why would the government apply draconian taxes to itself?
As BB has pointed out, we are a long way from our trading partners, so any reduction in imported fuels has an extra double benefit from savings in transporting both the imported fuels and the exports to pay for them.
Trevor.