Last chance to have your say on emissions – online

I’ll give MfE credit for one thing. If you are going to hold a Clayton’s consultation on a 2020 target, (like giving 1.4 million Aucklander’s just an hour and a half to have their say), you certainly get high marks for courage with tonight’s online webcast/consultation round. Pulling this off without a hitch would be a technical triumph, even if the consultation is a shallow one.

Click here for details of the webcast. I encourage everybody and anybody to take the time to log on tonight and have a go. If you’ve got questions, you can email them in advance, or use the live chat features to try and get a word in edgewise.

Old timers like me or people with substandard internet connections may find it easier on IRC:  irc.mibbit.com and the chat channel is #mfe.

I have reason to believe (e.g. rumours) that the only reason that Nick Smith is going through these motions is because Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd both rang John Key personally during the Bonn talks last month and gave him a bollocking for our government being so slack in setting a 2020 target. (By the end of that meeting, we were the only country left who hadn’t set a target, and our bemused negotiators had made promises of a “public consultation” taking place with an answer by August.)

It was confirmed in the House after questions from the Green MPs that Kevin Rudd had in fact rung the PM, but we haven’t heard confirmation of Gordon Brown’s phone call, at least not from the Beehive.

If you want some pointers on issues you can raise, read the Green’s submission guide.

23 thoughts on “Last chance to have your say on emissions – online

  1. I keep hoping I am wrong.

    I have a distressing track record (being a pessimist) when it comes to that.

    BJ

  2. First point last wreck.

    No Green policy intends to drive manufacturing out of NZ.

    Next : If we adopt goals internationally the “other countries” have to have environmental goals too. Nobody gets a free ride.

    Finally: Poverty relative to the oil-wealth years is coming anyway.

    Peak oil has happened and we will never pump as much as fast as we already have. So cheap energy is just not possible in the long term.

    It is possible to burn the dirtiest fuel, coal, to stretch things out, but that makes the CO2 go up much faster and won’t make that much difference in the long run. Coal should be left in the ground.

    IMHO It won’t be and we will reap the AGW catastrophe entailed but that doesn’t effect the diminishing energy per-capita.

    http://www.paulchefurka.ca/WEAP2/WEAP2.html

    If we in fact go ahead and burn ALL the coal we can look forward to a future that contains no ice at either pole and oceans that will be almost 80 meters deeper. I daresay the survivors (if there are any) will look back on the poor of this century as wealthy beyond belief.

    If we manage to stop it short of that we may keep the damage to about 25 meters and some sort of civilization surviving… probably at about a sixth to a tenth of the current global population.

    We have to be smarter than that.

    I don’t think we are.

    BJ

  3. Heh heh…right!

    I order from Amazon most of the time. Even with the postage, it works out roughly the same price, but their services levels are far higher than here.

  4. BP

    It hasn’t arrived yet :-( … If I had ordered from Amazon and it came from overseas I might be more understanding, except that in THAT case I’d probably already have it.

    BJ

  5. Daves hysteria will be nothing compare to the hysteria of the general public when power prices double, cars become unaffordable, and the large increase in poverty.

    Just look at the crazy reaction to flow limiters on showers.

    In addition, you will drive manufacturing output to countries have have far fewer environmental laws than NZ, resulting in a net increase in world pollution.

    These are unintended (and maybe intended) consequences of greenie thinking.

  6. >>his position was established for him by his stockbroker

    Now who is being supercilious….

    BJ – Had a read, yet? I find it odd your companions are dismissing it outright. Especially comical given the conclusions…

  7. “bjchip – your comment on Farrar’s hysteria post was excellent, though I swear I heard the sound of pearls bouncing off piggy hides.”

    What a bunch of babies!! :) toughen up lads.

  8. jarbury – I know it’s too ridiculous to mention, but…
    ricicolus has been corrected to ridicolous.

    Holy glued-together dictionary, Fatman!

  9. bjchip – your comment on Farrar’s hysteria post was excellent, though I swear I heard the sound of pearls bouncing off piggy hides.

  10. Frog says :BP is only paid to be contradictory jarbury, not to be logical or explanatory

    Have to agree. A lot of supercilious posing as sweet reason there at times.
    At least he acknowledges there is an issue of substance on the table, but it’s odd that his position was established for him by his stockbroker. Wouldn’t want his ‘principles’ in the parliament.

  11. I don’t know either, but I put in my $0.02 over there as well. Yammerheads, the lot of them. It is like wading in sh!t to wrestle with pigs.

    BJ

  12. >>There’s only one thing that this hysteria could mean: that National are very very worried indeed about the public support for a 40% reduction by 2020

    That is truly ridiculous.

    The only support for that target is coming from the 7% ers.

    Nobody else gives a toss.

  13. Crikey anyone read David Farrar’s hysterical post on the 40% reduction by 2020 target: http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/07/the_ridicolous_40_by_2020_campaign.html

    He got his knickers in such a twist he even spelled ridicUlous wrong.

    Now for the hysteria:

    So as I said, let us say we get rid of every car and bus in New Zealand. We all walk to work, video-conference, cycle or take the solar powered train. That takes out 20%. Only a third of the way there.

    Then we decide to join Great Barrier Island and survive off solar power. We close down all the power plants and turn off the electricity supplies. It’s candles for warmth in winter. That gets a another 9%. 29%.

    To get to 60% we also really need to wipe out those agricultural methane emissions by shooting every evil cow we can find. That gets us to 50%. Yes I know it will mean no more dairy exports. In fact we may even need to import our milk and butter, but hey we will have met our target.

    There is an upside though. Our incomes will all drop by thousands of dollars as we wipe out the agricultural sector. And it is tough having less money to spend. But as cars would have been outlawed, and there will be no electricity bills, as we have no electricity, then that should allow you to survive the drop in income a bit easier.

    The crazy thing is that he completely ignores the difference between net emissions and gross emissions. He says we’ll have to turn off all power even though 70% of our electricity is generated from renewables, and get rid of all cars.

    There’s only one thing that this hysteria could mean: that National are very very worried indeed about the public support for a 40% reduction by 2020. So worried that they’ve got their lead blogger in a frenzy spouting absolute rubbish.

  14. Oh well at least Aucklanders are getting a say even if it is a token one.
    Here in the North where we have in the Whangarei district a population of 10.000 more people than Taranaki , in Kaitaia a larger population than Queenstown , in the Norther Kaipara /Mangawhai district a greater population than the Queenstown lakes district, in Whangarei itself a larger population than both Nelson and New Plymouth. And I haven’t mentioned the population of the Bay of Islands district ,we didn’t get a single consultation meeting.!!!!!!!! Typical of parliament’s inexcusable attitude to Northland. We are always ignored. And from which party do the majority of MP’s representing Northland come from.? From National the party that has always taken northalnd’s voters for granted and given them three fifths of F.A. in return for generations.

Comments are closed.