Climate change - 10 simple facts
There’s a nice little summary of global warming facts here at Good:
- 2005 was the warmest year ever recorded, closely followed by 1998 and 2007. Twelve of the 13 warmest years on record were between 1995 and 2007.
- The reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based on the peer-reviewed, published work of 2,500 scientists in more than 130 countries.
- Climate is average weather. It’s what all the weather adds up to over time, to give averages for temperature, rainfall, snow and frost.
- The difference in climate between a warm period and the middle of an ice age is between 4°C and 6°C.
- 125,000 years ago (during the last warm period between ice ages) temperatures were around 1.5°C higher than they are now; the sea level was 4-6m higher.
- The world has already warmed 0.74°C over the past 100 years.
- The oceans keep New Zealand cooler than the rest of the world. Since 1950 New Zealand has warmed by 0.4°C. Thank you, Pacific Ocean.
- If we stop emitting all greenhouse gases today, the world will keep warming because of the gas already in the atmosphere. In 30 years it would be at least 1.6°C warmer than before the Industrial Age began 200 years ago.
- The most serious consequences of global warming might be avoided if global average temperatures rise by no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels.
- If greenhouse gas emissions continue unchecked, our grandchildren could face increases in global average temperature of up to 6°C by 2100. This will have a devastating impact on life on Earth.
Compiled from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (2007) and Hot Topic by Gareth Renowden (AUT Media, 2007)
Bookmark to:
August 14th, 2008 at 11:53 am
“The oceans keep New Zealand cooler than the rest of the world. Since 1950 New Zealand has warmed by 0.4°C. Thank you, Pacific Ocean.”
Yet another reason we don’t need to participate in this Kyoto silliness…
August 14th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Good effort reading down to number 7 BluePeter. Did you also read 8, 9 and 10 before making your ruling on the silliness of Kyoto?
August 14th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I don’t see what they have to do with New Zealand.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
“The oceans keep New Zealand cooler than the rest of the world. Since 1950 New Zealand has warmed by 0.4°C. Thank you, Pacific Ocean.”
That is an out right deception.
The ocean around NZ actually keeps us warmer than normal for our latitude especially in winter.
Its this sort of mis-information that gives people little credibility on these issues.
I can not believe they have made this statement, we have an oceanic climate which insulates us from the worst cold if the seas are warming up we will feel it first.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
BP
I strongly suggest that “united we stand, divided we fall” is the best maxim for humans on this Planet to follow when it comes to dealing with Climate Change.
Your idea of “individual responsibility” just won’t get us through, especially if the “responsibility” part is ignored in the way that you suggest.
August 14th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
You got number one wrong. It should read: “No one cares”.
Well, they do care, but not as much as they care about other things, like energy prices.
I see in the Press today that the Nats are comitting to burning more coal, a policy exactly aligned with the Green Party. Yep, the Greens and the Nats are more alike every day…
August 14th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
“united we stand, divided we fall”
Marginal benefit (club membership) vs enormous cost to the economy (might even destroy it)
United we fall….
August 14th, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Why not some other simple facts? Here are my questions for climate change scientists to answer:
How much has the climate has varied over the history of the planet and the variance has had nothing to do with man?
Have those variations been huge? Say, 30m rise or fall in the Ocean sea level.
Is it conceivable the climate would change anyway even if man left the planet tomorrow?
How much a percentage does man’s CO2 output make of the planet total?
Is it conceivable that if man is pushing climate change one way, nature is pushing it another, and we may actually do good? If there are tipping points, is it conceivable that we may need to tip in the very direction we are arguing that we should not?
Other than the common sense in not polluting our environment (and sustainability benefits from reducing pollution), is it conceivable that our efforts will have no real impact on climate change as an ongoing process?
——
These questions are not a reflection on my position on man-made pollution (and to be generous I’ll allow that CO2 is ‘pollution’ in the context of Kyoto).
August 14th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
IN Eastern Canada they have measured “degree days” for over 50 years as a way of determining the energy consumption of dwellings in winter. One degree day is 24 hours at 59 degrees Fahrenheit. So if the temperature stayed at zero fahrenheit for 24 hours a total of 60 degree days would be recorded.
The annual number of degree days, in any suburb in greater Toronto has, according to a friend in the energy business there, stayed within a 200 average over the entire history of those recordings.
I have two questions - serious ones!
1. How does this equate with global warming?
2. Are there any similar statistics (ie records of ambient daily temperatures and annual ‘totals’ for anywhere in New ZEaland that we can track for understanding?
August 14th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
You said
>
>>125,000 years ago (during the last warm period between ice ages) temperatures were around 1.5°C higher than they are now; the sea level was 4-6m higher.
To what do scientists ascribe the global cooling that took place after that time?
August 14th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
ZenTiger, to cherry pick:
You’d have to know that has varied all over the place. The question you didn’t ask is ‘how does the current rate (speed) of change compare with past rates of change?’
Why is that relevant? i.e. the concept of the ‘tipping point’ and all that jazz.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm seems like a reasonable summation of ‘global warming good/bad’
August 14th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Realclimate would seem to have the biggest freakin depository of frequently asked questions/issues..
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/
August 14th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
“The oceans keep New Zealand cooler than the rest of the world. Since 1950 New Zealand has warmed by 0.4°C. Thank you, Pacific Ocean.”
I stopped reading it after this point. The bloody Pacific Ocean would be the reason why New Zealanders shell out millions a year for holidays to Fiji and Queensland to enjoy some decent weather. It is not thank you Pacific Ocean, it is I don’t like you at all Pacific Ocean.
I would like to enjoy a decent summer for more than one year - i.e. have the summer that we had this year carry on to perpetuity.
August 14th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
Frog,
You have missed out the only really important fact about climate change, and it makes no difference if it’s caused by humans or just natural. So I’ll add this one.
11. The climate effects how much food can be produced in the area effected by it.
Food production in an unchanging climate is fairly predictable.
Food production in a changing climate is unpredictable.
If global food production is unpredictable, will we still be able to feed over 6.5 billion mouths?
And even more importantly, if we can’t, what will happen next?
August 14th, 2008 at 11:30 pm
Zen Tiger,
Here is my attempt to answer some of your questions:
1) How much has the climate has varied over the history of the planet and the variance has had nothing to do with man?
Most climate change over the history of the Earth has not had anything to do with human activity. The climate has varied enormously, even during the last hundred thousand years or so that modern humans have been around.
2) Have those variations been huge? Say, 30m rise or fall in the Ocean sea level.
The variations have been much larger than that. From memory the sea level rise since the last glacial maximum has been about 125 m.
3) Is it conceivable the climate would change anyway even if man left the planet tomorrow?
Yes. The climate has been changing for as long as the Earth has had a climate.
4) How much a percentage does man’s CO2 output make of the planet total?
Since the industrial revolution, the atnospheric CO2 levels have risen by about 35% as a result of human activity. Natural sources of CO2 are about 20 times greater than human sources, but these are nearly balanced by natural sinks. Human emissions become a problem if there is no sink (natural or otherwise) to balance them.
5) Is it conceivable that if man is pushing climate change one way, nature is pushing it another, and we may actually do good? If there are tipping points, is it conceivable that we may need to tip in the very direction we are arguing that we should not?
This is conceivable, but current science suggests that that is not what is happening.
6) Other than the common sense in not polluting our environment (and sustainability benefits from reducing pollution), is it conceivable that our efforts will have no real impact on climate change as an ongoing process?
If you mean our efforts to reduce CO2 emissions will have no real impact; then the answer is quite possibly, because our efforts to date have been rather pathetic. If you mean our activity has no real impact on climate change, the answer is almost certainly that they are having a very large effect.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Another point about climate change.
There is no fixed limit to how many people this or any other planet can sustain. The limit varies dependant on the climate. While the Greens try to convince us to fight a loosing battle against climate change, that will eventually happen by our own fault or not, they have forgotten why they are fighting it in the first place.
I think with our current technology, a human could sustainably live through higher global temperatures and even an ice age. The ability for over 6 billion to do so is a bit far fetched though.
If you want an example, take a look at Mars. No life can be sustained there, but if everything that life needs “is” there (they have already found water) and with a little coaxing to get the climate right, it could even sustain a billion odd people itself. But any scientist would think it stupid to colonise it to it’s limits wouldn’t they?
So why do we think it’s no problem to colonise this planet to it’s limits?
You Greens have to stop talking about fighting the climate, and educate people about how to live through it. Otherwise they are just going to die tired.
August 15th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Strings, According to the Meteorological Service of Canada your Toronto friend has misinformed you. You can find the Toronto HDDs graphed on page 23 of this pdf.
http://www.pollutionprobe.org/Happening/pdfs/march22sustenergy/klaasse n.pdf
August 15th, 2008 at 9:12 am
>> You Greens have to stop talking about fighting the climate, and
>> educate people about how to live through it. Otherwise they are
>> just going to die tired.
DougT, tell me what the Greens should do. Give me example of how you think the Greens should educate people.
August 15th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
should have said the ocean keeps us “more moderate”, not “cooler”
bluepeter you’re not thinking clearly. even supposing it is o.k. for us to let the rest of the world fry as long as we’re o.k. think about what would happen if nz was an island of pleasant climate in a world devastated by global warming.
we’d be subjected to a flood of refugees we, or our grandkids, would be powerless to stop - is that the sort of world you want for them?
August 15th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
# andrew Says:
August 15th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
> bluepeter you’re not thinking clearly. even supposing it is o.k. for us to let the rest of the world fry as long as we’re o.k. think about what would happen if nz was an island of pleasant climate in a world devastated by global warming.
we’d be subjected to a flood of refugees we, or our grandkids, would be powerless to stop - is that the sort of world you want for them?
and a flood of seawater
August 15th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
The climate scientists seem to all agree that human activities are one of the main causes of global warming, they even call it this big long word that i can’t even pronounce let alone spell. But they have never mentioned anything about doing something about the population. In ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ the world population graph looked very similar to the CO2 graph. If global warming is caused by humans wouldn’t it be logical to bring in some sort of population awareness programme. Even if it is just making people aware that their childern might not survive the future if the planet heats up too much. So only have one child like the Chinese.
August 15th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Presse-puree,
It’s pretty simple really.
They should explain the reasons they were pushing for zero population & economic growth when they were the Values Party. Those ideas would have been hard to understand back then, because the limits to population growth were still a wee way off being met. Now that the climate is changing unpredictably, it is looking more like those limits will meet us rather that us meet them.
The ability to produce enough food to sustain 6.5 billion people is just one of the limits, that’s why we have GE food now. Normal crops aren’t coping with the changing climate or the increasing demand. I was hoping the Greens would be able to point out the elephant in the living room, but maybe they can’t see it any more either.
Don’t get me wrong though, trying to lessen the effects that we have on the environment is the right thing to do, but ensuring that we don’t get too close to the limits of growth is part of it too.
The Greens are currently telling us that we must use renewable this and sustainable that, and reduce using this or that so that global warming will be stopped. But they should also be telling people that if they want to get the kind of lifestyle that they have now, they will have to accept that there has to be a ballance between population and consumption. If you want a bigger population, consume less, but if you want the high consumption, reduce the population.
Does that sound reasonable enough?
P.S. That’s not a retorical question. I really want to know if you think that is a reasonable idea.
August 15th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Paranoid Peter,
I know what your saying.
As Al Gore would say, “I wonder, did they ever fit?”
August 15th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
When it comes to AGW, the difference between a small human population and a huge human population is kind of like the difference between hitting a tin can with a piano tuning hammer and a sledge hammer.
You need to hit the can pretty hard with a piano tuning hammer to make a dent, but it doesn’t take much effort to flatten the can with a sledge hammer.
August 15th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Indeed, DougT. We have two choices if we’d like to reduce carbon emission in the long-term: Lower population or lower emissions per-person.
Unfortunately, we don’t have the luxury of a long-term solution. We’ve got, according to the rather conservative IPCC estimate, about a hundred months (the counter says “2938 days” or “70512 hours” if you prefer a more exact timeline :P) to reduce emissions before we’re likely to see a permanent 2°C rise above the planet’s natural variation in temperature.
August 15th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
DougT, I think you have correctly alluded to the core of the issues that face us in NZ.
There is a certain population we can cope with happily in NZ. We have a certain amount of “green” energy, and a certain amount of food production capacity etc etc.
These issues necessitate that we consider what is a reasonable level of population for us to aim for. It is less than we might think.
We cannot let ourselves worry too much about what other countries do, or what “growth” policies they live by, or even by what they think of the Kyoto protocol etc.
We need to make our own decisions and do only what is best for NZ.
I think the Kyoto protocol is going to break our backs, and there are other ways we can go about preparing for the future.
We still need to be aware of the value of our “clean, green” branding though (whether we deserve the green label or not).
We still need to limit our population and energy demands to the level that can be met using “green” technology, simply so that our global brand stays as green as possible. Food exports and tourism depend upon it.
For example, there is no point blindly following John Key’s idea that we should rely on gas and/or coal forever. That simply leads us towards higher population, higher pollution and higher energy use.
It might be a necessary policy for the short term, but should be followed by more longterm thinking that limits growth.
The concept that the only good future is a “growth” future is at the core of so many problems.
August 15th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
Doug T
A good post, but I notice you have “swallowed” this idea :
“The ability to produce enough food to sustain 6.5 billion people is just one of the limits, that’s why we have GE food now. Normal crops aren’t coping with the changing climate or the increasing demand.”
Nature has always provided us with enough varieties of the plants we need (or the capacitiy to produce these varieties) to cope with regional changes caused by Climate Change.
It now appears that that is NOT all that GE has been about.
I understand that many of the GE crops available have been “Patented” by the Companies that “own” them. The GE plants produce seeds containing “terminator” genes so that the (sometimes subsistence) farmers cannot produce next years crop from saved seeds.
They must buy more seed from the Company that holds the Patent.
This has been / is leading to increased poverty and even starvation in areas that the GE seeds have been used.
August 15th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
True, and nature has generally tested the basic genetic makeup of such varieties for thousands (millions?) of years.
How arrogant mankind is to assume that our “scientific” methods of assessment (usually involving mere months of testing/assessment) can ensure environmental safety.
August 15th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
Well said greengeek!
August 15th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Dont forget that nature has also provided us with plenty of creatures which have totally destroyed their environment and caused many other genetic strands to disappear, though normaly this is checked in nature by things such as starvation, nature has finally created the ultimate predator, one which is systematicly destroying the world and the very things that support it, ultimatly, it would seem, to cause its own extinction like many other species before it; i do of course mean humans. lol
August 15th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
“Dont forget that nature has also provided us with plenty of creatures which have totally destroyed their environment and caused many other genetic strands to disappear”
Not to long ago I watched a documentary about king cobra snakes.
They were going on about how the cobra had evolved the amazing ability to construct a nest that kept its eggs at exactly the right temperature to ensure survival.
When the eggs were about to hatch they removed mummy snake because she would have eaten all her young.
Maybe some animals deserve to become extinct,
although snakey may have been making a political protest.
August 15th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
eredwen is right, we have plenty of ability to grow food without needing GE.
It is pure greed that promotes this crap, nothing else.
If people grew food for food instead of money, no one would touch the stuff.
If we invested this time and energy into better farming/growing practice GE would be totally un-necessary
August 15th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Sapient writes:
” … to cause its own extinction like many other species before it … ”
I reply:
Well … Lately it seems that Homo sapiens (using that grand name that we gave ourselves) is making progress in that direction (again).
Various groups of us are trying out all sorts of methods of wiping “other people” off the Planet.
Some of these methods are are old, and some are new.
The USA, with the conivance of the Israelis, is rethinking the possibilities of nuclear anihilation. (That was a “biggie” when I was a young adult, but it lost favour for a while.)
In the lull between, whole new arsenals of new weapons have been developed, and depleted uranium (a useful carcinogen) is now “blowing in the wind”* and around the Globe (courtesy of US munitions makers who, needing to find a “profitable”use for it, found that it could be used to harden the tips of bullets and shells etc to improve their “penetration” (into the flesh of those pesky “other” humans, that they want to get rid of.) The fact that it vaporises* on impact and thus enters the atmosphere, seems to be of no concern.
As well as DU, pollution (of all sorts) is a whole new ball game.
Between them they have great possibilities to kill off millions of humans.
……………………………………………………………………………………………
Sarcasm aside, I feel very sad that we will take other species with us as we finally go through the processes of wiping ourselves off the face of this wonderful Planet Earth.
eredwen
August 16th, 2008 at 1:02 am
eredwen,
I probably shouldn’t have worded the bit about GE food the way I did because I do realise that it is not actually feeding the starving like some GE advocates claim it is being used for. But if you have a cause like starvation or climate change, people will use it as an excuse to experiment with new, unproven ideas. And the problem with something that hasn’t been proven is that you don’t know what the adverse side effects might be.
but now they do 
Which is why they don’t talk about that any more 
Just because the Greens knew there “might” be problems with GE, the scientists that worked on it probably didn’t realise it also. It’s just like how the Greens didn’t realise there “might” be a problem with the safe disposal of Mercury in eco bulbs
The Greens have sort of got the idea when it comes to AGW though.
But not quite.
The first line of the first campaign issue according to the Greens is…
Almost there but not quite.
It should read more like..
“The rate that at which we are burning oil and other fossil fuels is changing the atmosphere”
One person burning coal is not a problem, because the planet can absorb that amount of CO2 quite easily. But a few billion people burning coal is a problem, because the planet is still the same size, despite how many of us there are.
Because the noticable increase in CO2 started at around the 60’s (just to be conservative) when there was a global population of just under 3 billion, it would stand to reason that we would have to try to emit less than half the CO2 than we did back then to be at a safe level. But that would not be enough either, because there is less forested area on the planet than there was back then, and the forests are getting smaller, and CO2 output is still increasing thanks to the booming Chineese and Indian economies. I’m not blaming China or India when I say that though, because they are only doing what people like us have encouraged them to do.
August 16th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
DougT,
In reply:
Yes! … and the Chinese are burning OUR coal … which we shipped and sold to them, instead of leaving it in the ground until we, or future generations, figured out how to use it without adding to the Warming or Polluting of our Planet …
Thanks for the comment. I’d suspect that your “almost there but not quite” criticism is more likely to be somebody wording a statement to meet a deadline in the middle of the night, rather than the Greens misunderstanding the facts.
(There have been a heck of a lot of words floating around all members of the Green Party, for us to read, digest and comment upon before each Policy Document is finalised.
It has been a mammoth task, so do forgive us one “error”!
(I’d say that the Greens do have a fairly clear idea of what is happening, wouldn’t you?)
I seriously doubt that your interpretation that the Greens have been silent on ecobulbs because of their mercury content is correct.
That problem was common knowledge as far as I was concerned.
(Greens are not usually invited into the media spotlight, but the work goes on.)
e
August 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Doug T
Continuing on the comment about ecobulbs, (and putting things in perspective.)
When they FIRST came on the market, several years ago now(?) I put ecobulbs right through my house and the flat that I let out, (38 bulbs in all).
In that time only ONE bulb out of of the 38 has needed to be replaced.
Christchurch is in the process of setting up its special collection system.
I understand that if they are labelled and separately wrapped when they go out with the rubbish they will be separately dealt with. (Meanwhile they can be dropped off at our recycling/dump complex for special treatment.)
e
August 16th, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Shunda Barunda …
Very well put! I totally agree!
August 16th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Doug T …
Make that 28 eco bulbs, not 38!
It is still an impressive “bulb life” so far, however.
You have spurred me on to ask some hard questions of Christchurch City Council and Environment Canterbury about consumer education, safe collection, safe disposal … but they seem to be on to it.
However, on the subject of mercury poisoning, I’m NOT willing to get rid of those amalgam fillings in my teeth, (from my pre-fluoride childhood).
Maybe we need “safe disposal” strategies for the pre-fluoride teeth of my generation … when we “pass on” like the Cigna-Funeral-Plan addvert on TV)?
Enough on mercury !
e
August 16th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
eredwen,
Are you honestly telling me that the statement “Burning oil and other fossil fuels is changing the atmosphere” was a last minute realisation by your policy makers? Come on Greens, why don’t you admit it. You are too scared to talk openly about overpopulation because you are afraid it will cost you votes. And before you say that overpopluation is not a problem in New Zealand, just remember that that is exactly the same attitude that many people have about climate change too. We only produce a tiny fraction of greenhouse gasses, so why bother
And as far as eco bulbs are concerned, I have personally had to replace at least half a dozen of the ones in our house (we still have incandescant bulbs that have outlasted some of our eco bulbs). And they all went to the landfill, because I didn’t even know that they contained mercury. And now that I do know they are hazardous waste, they still go in with the landfill, because we don’t have any collection points where I live, just like most of New Zealand.
The reason I pointed out the eco bulbs was because it was a very good example of the kind of panic problem solving that is going on in the world today. We have seen a panic solution to peak oil, with production of bio fuel, and now it is creating an even bigger polution problem that the oil was, plus it has caused a reduction in food crops. That’s why the Europeans are abandoning it now.
You have to face the facts Greens, you can’t fix this problem. The world has to get out of this false idea that we can stop climate change, and start talking about how to prevent it from happening again. And the main thing everyone has to understand is that future generations must be made aware of the limits that this planet impose on sustainable population.
I can totally understand that you would never consider the last bit though. The Greens are a political party after all. And it would be political suicide to tell the whole truth on this one.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:27 am
DOUG T ,
I will answer your post, though you may be “just letting off steam” (?)
You ask:
1. “Are you honestly telling me that the statement “Burning oil and other fossil fuels is changing the atmosphereâ€? was a last minute realisation by your policy makers?”
REPLY:
Of course NOT! Green policies are produced with input from all who are interested and/or with appropriate expertise. They are then well circulated and discussed among all the Greens as part of the process.
For some reason I was under the (mis)impression that you were talking about the WORDING, rather than the content, so I answered accordingly.
2. “Too scared to talk openly about overpopulation … ”
I REPLY:
Certainly not! (We also notice that some people use AotearoaNZ’s size and population to say that “We don’t need to worry about climate change”) … We would answer that “everyone on the Planet is part of the problem and must be part of the solution”… “What if every similar sized group used the same excuse?” … etc …
Similar arguments re-surface from visitors to frogblog from time to time!
3. “You have to face the facts Greens, you can’t fix this problem. The world has to get out of this false idea that we can stop climate change, and start talking about how to prevent it from happening again. And the main thing everyone has to understand is that future generations must be made aware of the limits that this planet impose on sustainable population.”
DougT, we are “’singing from a similar hymn book”. I wonder how much you have read and heard of/about what the Greens are saying.
YES, the Green Party of AotearoaNZ is a Political Party AND we do “tell the whole truth” … and we find that an increasing number of aware people want us to do so. Support for the Greens is increasing …
(… NOT “political suicide” despite your fears!)
e
August 17th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
eredwin,
I’m afraid I’m just your average kiwi, who gets most of his information from what the media tells me.
From what I have seen, the Greens are a group of people who want to bring the standard of living down a peg or two and get everyone hugging trees and becoming vegetarians. This is not what I personally believe, but it’s how I see the Party being portrayed when I watch the news. I also had the perception that the Greens would dismiss the idea that the world is overpopulated. Don’t blame me if I got the wrong impression, like I said before, I’m just your average Kiwi bloke. I have looked into a couple of things about the Greens, but not alot, I’ll admit. But that’s the only way I found out that you guys had the answer way back whe you were the Values Party (although Zero population & economic growth was all I really know about the Values Party).
I have pretty much always thought that overpopulation would eventually be a global problem, but never really thought that anyone that could do anything about it really cared. But when I researched it a little I found that some people in very high places do understand the problem. Jane Goodall, Isacc Asimov, Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King, Stephen Hawking, The Dalai Lama, Jacques Cousteau & Jeanette Fitzsimonds are just a few names I can drop off the top of my head. You might note that a number of these people are highly intellegent.
The only way I know this is because I deliberately sought out the information. And it was only after I sent an email to all the political parties to ask if the subject of overpopulation could be included in the discussion of global warming, that I found out that the Greens already understood the seriousness of the problem. I doubt that many other average Kiwis out there have had the problem explained to them, despite the message about climate change being so well aired now.
If you want to know why it is important to me to get the issue openly discussed in parliament, just ask yourself why it’s important to you guys to have climate change openly discussed in parliament.
And if you want to know why I think New Zealand should bother when we probably aren’t really overpopulated anyway, just ask yourself if it’s easier to prevent a problem or to cure it?
And I don’t think the demographic transition is a cure. It relies too heavily on a strong economy, and luck.
August 17th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
vegetarians - phil u often makes the point that not many of the Greens ARE vegetarians.
overpopulation - have seen toad say that they are formulating policy on that one…
August 18th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Is this true?
I would be very keen to see an “actual” population policy. All the other parties just talk about demographics and ignore population size, let alone sustainable population size.
August 18th, 2008 at 9:33 am
No reason to think it isn’t true. We’ll just wait and see I guess…
August 19th, 2008 at 3:41 am
Doug T
Thanks for the long and detailed reply (17 August 5:06pm)
In answer:
I note that you put Jeanette Fitzsimons on your list of “people in high places who do understand the problems”. That’s accurate! She is a dedicated Green and a very pleasant and approachable person who lives “a Green life”. Jeanette is an an excellent MP and Green Party Leader.
The “tree hugging”, “morris dancing”, etc portrayed by the media is a caracature which is repeated by some (presumably lazy?) journalists. There is little we can do about this. Silly stereotypes of the Greens are hard to get rid of. Unfortunately, this superficial journalism says very little about the Greens … Unfortunately some people believe it.
I come from a family that has always questioned things. I joined ZPG (Zero Population Growth) in the 1960s and I joined the Values Party when it formed.
Later, (when I returned to AotearoaNZ after some time overseas) I joined the Green Party. My adult children are both Greens. My brother and his family are Greens also, in California USA.
The tree hugging, morris dancing, etc portrayed by the media is not good. I watch this repetition in disbelief! There is little we can do about it however … (and some Greens, from time to time, have been known to dance!)
eredwen