by frog
Friends of the Earth and their friends have produced a moving video message for our politicians, The Big Ask. The video really says what needs to be said:
I have to ask of course, but is that Don Elder playing the suit? Now that the suits are in charge of new Zealand’s climate change negotiators and responses, we can expect a backlash from our larger trading partners. Polite critics call it special pleading. I call it whinging.
Published in Environment & Resource Management | Video by frog on Wed, December 3rd, 2008
Tags: climate change, Friends of the Earth, Frog, frogblog, green, new zealand, party, politics, suits, the big ask
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
For a moment I thought you were promoting a certain right wing party …. ACT Now?
The trouble with reducing greenhouse gases is that it is a very indirect way of addressing the issues facing the environment.
Particularly when the heart of the problem is too many people, too few effective markets [which will require, dare I say it, regulatory oversight], and too few high quality public policy initiatives.
Water stress – for a start make users pay for the resource. Then we’ll have no dairy farms in Canterbury wasting the acquifers – then we’ll stop growing rice in the Murray Darling basin etc.
Oil shortages – price oil for its externalities using taxes – recycle the tax into public transport or even income tax relief.
Renewables – public policy initiatives to make up for the costs of embryonic technologies.
I don’t think its arguable – we are putting too much stress on the planet – Sustainability is the issue and we do need to Act Now!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Particularly when the heart of the problem is too many people…”
Does anyone disagree with this?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I disagree. Too many people is only a problem at the moment because of the way we live, work and run our economies. Not that the exponential growth in population isn’t a problem that will soon overtake us. It’s just that the way we “keep house” is exacerbating the population problem. There is a nice quote that appears on The Oil Drum, which I paraphrase here badly:
The problem is that we have 1 billion people that no longer want to ride bikes, but would rather own and drive a car instead. (Presumably because we in the West do.) Is such an ambition evil? Not at all. Is it dangerous to the well being of the planet? Hell yes!
We’ll never eliminate private transport from our cultures, and nor should we even try. But a car in every garage is a dream that hopefully will never materialise. I doubt it ever could.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fair comment frog. I should have qualified it – The heart of the problem is that we’ve got too many people for the current way we operate…… After all we could fit the entire world population into the open spaces of the New Zealand and still all have room to lie down.
With cradle to cradle, closed loop sustainability we could sustain several times the number of people currently on the planet. Michael Braungart, co=author of Cradle to Cradle pointed out that ants consume the equivalent of 30 billion peoples worth of biomass but because they are sustainable with closed loop “waste=food” eco-systems they don’t have that much impact.
The thing is generating the awareness of the need to change to a sustainable model, encouraging the desire to change, building the knowledge and ability to change and then reinforcing the change.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Frog,
If overpopulation is a function of the carrying rate and the affluence of the population, with which i agree, then it follows logically that with a lower affluence, or higher carrying rate (eg through terraforming or recycling), we could have higher population. so far logic is perfect.
However, consumption interactsoutside of this equation also, that is, the consumption rate dictates how much resources must be processedand as such how many people must be employed in the processing. Less consumption means that less people are employed in processing, and since there is a maximum ratio of goods to higher industry it means that there is less people employed over all. Even with our present consumtion and population rates it is inconceivable that there would be enough employment, yet to become sustainable but keep the population we would need to drop consumption, and thus employment, greatly. Therefore, it follows logically that we are overpopulated, and looking at the numbers; extemly so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>>Therefore, it follows logically that we are overpopulated, and looking at the numbers; extemly so.
Yes. And by earlier comments implying that ‘cradle to cradle’ technology can permit this earth to support many more billions, I finally appreciate the fatal flaw in modern green thinking. It has compromised way too much. Don’t humans also enjoy the ‘wide open spaces’, the ‘natural’ environment? Everyone living cheek by jowl may very well be the future – I’m glad I won’t be there to experience it though.
Furthermore, ‘cradle to cradle’ is still embedded in a growth mentality. If successful, it will only put off the the population tipping point by two or three generations, I would suspect.
Back to the deep greens for me. Bye
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient’s logic [and command of English] is flawed. Maybe chosing Sapient as an online handle set the bar too high?
Sapient’s logic presupposes that employment is only derived from physical processing of tangible resources. Tell Bill Gates that his fortune is an illusion because all Microsoft handles is information.
It also presupposes a linear, open loop, – source – make – waste system. In a closed loop recycling system waste from one step in the process becomes input to the next step – in Braungart’s terminology Waste=Food.
As for kjuv – there is so much open space in the world that 6.7 billion people would only be check by jowl if we fitted them into the North Island. There is no shortage of open space, just a shortage of vision. Cradle to Cradle is based on a celebration of human ingenuity which would seem too much of a stretch for deep greens. Sometimes it seems a stretch for mainstream greens as well although at least the Green Party is prepared to engage with the debate, not run from it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ron Shaw Says:
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
> As for kjuv – there is so much open space in the world that 6.7 billion people would only be check by jowl if we fitted them into the North Island. There is no shortage of open space, just a shortage of vision.
Indeed, there is no shortage of space for people. The looming shortage is of farmland, water and topsoil to produce the food with which to feed them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ron,
As for my command of english, i readily, and reguarly, admit that i am inept in relation to the complexities, more because it bores me than as as a reflection of my intelectual capacity.
As for the employment critque, you may wish to read comments a second time before you comment, i stated that higher employment can only exist under certain ratios with the physical sector, in excess of those ratios the capitalistic system fails as money fails to circulate efficently. the only way to increase the overall employment in relation to resource use past a certain point is to introduce inefficencies such as tariffs.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ron…Is that true?? It seems impossible.
I hope never to be in that position of consuming my own waste to survive.
I wonder what a realistic acreage figure would be, specifying the land area necessary for one normal human to survive with a reasonable standard of living?
There must already be a term for this surely?
“sustainability footprint”?
“consumption footprint”?
And I hope it includes space for a composting toilet at least.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ron,
And another, though admitedly small point, ants consume biological matter which when use is finished rapidly biodegrades and is reused, human society uses nonbiological matter largly and even in the precense of recylcling that cannot be used over and over again. I am aware that cradle to cradle insists on the use of non-biological materials that are used over and over in the same type of product without degrading, but, well; show me something that works, or could work, that way
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greengeek,
there is 113729 square kilometres in the North Island, thats 113729000000 square metres, assuming two people per two metres you can fit 113729000000 (113.729 billion) people.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
sapient – fine in theory, but there are places in the South Island that you couldn’t in all conscience, put people, eg. Gore.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
oh, NORTH Island. Careless reading by me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
greenfly are you a closet Gorealeno?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Would that be the same Friends of the Earth that demanded the genocidal DDT ban and more recently lobbied for biofuels which caused the price of basic foodstuffs in the poorest countries to skyrocket? Just how many more millions do they have to kill before they shut up?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly, likewise there are places in the Northth Island that you couldn’t, in all conscience, put real humans, eg. most of Auckland and bits of Wellington.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Ron, Advocating public transport as a key solution to AGW makes as much sense as advocating straight, wide roads as the solution to the road toll. On the face of it both seem to be logical solutions, under rigorous scrutiny both are found to be seriously flawed concepts that produce only minimal benefits. Nevertheless the suits love PT because of it’s ever increasing financial subsidies, ie, government guaranteed profits. Especially for bus and LRT manufacturers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient, You say that there is 113729 square kilometres in the North Island and, assuming two people per two metres, you can fit 113729000000 (113.729 billion) people into the North Island.
By a happy coincidence there is 6059 square kilometres in the Auckland region, enough space for the entire world’s current population. It just needs a big enough wall to keep them all from escaping
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry for the silence – I was celebrating gaining another client for our sustainability consultancy.
Sapient – could you give me reputable references [books, journals etc.] for the assertion that “higher employment can only exist under certain ratios with the physical sector, in excess of those ratios the capitalistic system fails”
Sapient – Interface Carpets have a cradle to cradle system for their carpet tiles. It does work for non biological items – Braungart’s term is technical nutrients. Also if you’ve ever used an aluminium can in NZ then most of it will be recycled with no degradation.
Greengeek – if you live in Auckland and drink the tap water then you are drinking recycled waste water, a molecule or two might have even passed through my bladder.
Kahikatea – my point exactly – its not about space its about how we conserve the resources given us by nature.
Have fun everyone.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good flick, but doomed by lack of leadership. Do WHAT????????????
I have told the Greens Leadership before this: the only reasonable way to address resource depletion and pollution democratically in such a short time is by large scale consensus to restrain our loins to 1 child per family for 100 years.
When the Greens finally decide this is the only reasonable way left, please cite my book ‘Numbers’, 2006, Universal Press, ISBN 158112-935-1.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Greengeek – if you live in Auckland and drink the tap water then you are drinking recycled waste water,”
Rubbish
http://www.watercare.co.nz/default,105.sm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Roman
10% of Auckland water comes from the Waikato River. This river contains the treated sewage of Hamilton and Cambridge, among others, and the effluent run off of thousands of dairy farms.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m not so sure about the “treated” bit having recently paddled a canoe from Cambridge to Hamilton. We made a game of counting “Richard the Thirds” and came to a respectable figure by Hamilton. Of course there could have been many more but the dense green soup of cow poo prevents you seeing below a depth of about six inches. Clean green NZ? Yeah, right. Glad my vacinations were up to date!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dragon says: “I have told the Greens Leadership before this: the only reasonable way to address resource depletion and pollution democratically in such a short time is by large scale consensus to restrain our loins to 1 child per family for 100 years.”
I reply:
The Greens in general are well aware of the concept of Zero Population Growth, and as a group our own “replacement rate” is low.
However: The forced adoption of the practice you advocate would prove to be neither “reasonable” nor “democratic” and therefore counterproductive … especially in societies where infant and child mortality is high, and where a woman is valued only as the bearer of sons … and children are valued as potential carers of their elderly parents.
In summary: Concept: “On the ball” Solution: “Too simplistic”!
Start by educating the girls AND reducing -> eradicating infant mortality.
(In the process, help societies to be able to feed themselves etc without the need for lots of child labour. Make sure there are altenative ways of caring for the elderly … etc etc)
THEN help the women to limit the sizes of their families!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dragon
“I have told the Greens Leadership before this: the only reasonable way to address resource depletion and pollution democratically in such a short time is by large scale consensus to restrain our loins to 1 child per family for 100 years.”
They obviously listened to you Dragon, it was policy at the last election.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen
“THEN help the women to limit the sizes of their families!”
Men have no say in this then?
I agree that couples should not have more kids than they can afford and as such I am sure that you can see the logic behind the call from many of us to do away with the “breeding incentives” offered by way of the DPB.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Slightly off topic but I wonder what the Greens have to say about the words of David Bellamy.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/69623/BBC-shunned-me-for-deny ing-climate-change
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s not hard to guess, BB.
They’ll label him a denier (evil doer)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Bellamy is rewriting history:
Full story at Deltoid here
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well clearly Bellamy is delusional and paranoid. There is no conspiracy keeping you off the air David, you’re just bad TV so no-one hires you.
I liked this comment: “The “sad fact” for David Bellamy is that competition for documentary commissions is intense, and the tenure of those who commission is often transient for the same reasons. Bellamy had a surprisingly long run, given his poor diction…but he was out-competed by a more televisually adept David.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It isn’t the men in suits who “need” fifty pairs of shoes (and matching handbags) and who wouldn’t be seen dead in last weeks fashions and who absolutely have to have the latest exotic taste treats (no matter how many planets have to die in the process) because Vogue is to die for!
FoE seems to be forgetting the it is Janet & John Average-Voter who don’t want any laws forcing them to reduce their carbon emissions to 1990 levels. And telling Janet & John Average-Voter that they can salve their single brain cell consciences by blaming the men-in-suits is a surefire way of stopping any effective action being taken by the biggest offenders (en mass) until a law is passed forcing them to. Or more precisely, taking away the chattering classes choice about what they can buy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)