NZ Green Party
National: everyone else must cut emissions by 40%

I know we keep banging on about climate change a lot over here, but this is just amazing so I had to post it!

From No Right Turn:

So, having set itself an utterly pathetic climate change target of 10% – 20%, and derided all talk of going for 40%, guess what target the New Zealand government is demanding from everyone else?

That’s right – 30 – 40 percent:

Overnight, New Zealand told delegates from 190 countries in Bonn that the Government’s emissions reduction target of 10-20% below 1990 levels is dependent on developed countries as a whole cutting their emissions to 30-40% below 1990 levels. “My jaw hit the floor,” said Geoff Keey, who was in the meeting at the time. “New Zealand has effectively told the rest of the developed world that if they work really hard to reduce their emissions by up to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, we’ll do half of that.

“There’s been so much rhetoric from the Government about New Zealand doing its “fair share” – they’re now calling for other countries to pick up our slack.”

This is just pure hypocrisy.

And as the icing on the cake:

New Zealand also admitted that the 2020 target will be achieved mostly by carbon offsets and not through actual emission reductions.

70 thoughts on “National: everyone else must cut emissions by 40%

  1. We’re not the ones emitting all the c02. So what we do is irrelevant.

    Like there’s no point committing suicide in New Zealand to stop the killing in Africa…..

    Symbolic, sure. But still suicide.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  2. BP. Its all right for you to comment from planet drivel – you don’t have the same issues we have here on planet earth!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  3. Its the last para that interests me, as this thinking also figures in the Green Party plan.

    If you are offsetting through some exchange of money for emissions, then no matter how you look at it, you’re not emitting less, which is, in my opinion, the only acceptable goal.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  4. BP

    There really is NO excuse for this. How do you expect a society to survive when people (such as yourself) clearly and blatantly refuse to do their share of the work? DAMN it man, the OECD countries have spent the past century pushing muck into the air and profiting from the process.

    I could make SOME argument about what we’ve already done and the nature of our emissions and put a little better face on this, but it sncks. It sncks big time. If one does make the argument about “what we’ve already done” it brings into play the question of per-capita CO2 emissions, and we’re not down to where China is, nor where we really need to be. Not to get to 350 ppm or less.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  5. BJ, I guess I’m just not as interested in pointless symbolic gestures as Green Party members. I refuse to endorse this scam, because that’s what it is.

    I prefer practical solutions to actual problems we can solve.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  6. It is never pointless to give the people you are working with, the impression that YOU are also working with them.

    Certainly it is counterproductive to tell them that you are not.

    In this case it is honest. It is however, still going to cause them to regard us as bludgers and THAT will make them unwilling to put their shoulders to the wheel. Which they must do.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  7. If every nation purchased and planted trees to the value of one years international carbon trading, not only would the planet be greener, we would likely remove a large chunk of the CO2 that you guys are concerned about.
    But that won’t happen because there are third world nations that need to stop smacking their kids and Helen Clark needs money to do it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  8. dbuckley,
    Under a carbon tax system such as the Greens favour that would be the case. Esspecially one which aims to be tax neutral, it will decrease emmisions slightly but ultimatly will do sweet f*ck all.
    Under a carbon trading system however it makes a very real difference for each ton offset is offset through purchasing a ton equivlent of sequestration and thus both the gross emmissions fall and the gross sequestration rises. If 100% were to be accounted for then 100% would be sequestered and we would be able to acheive 0 net emmisions, which is ultimatly where we need to be.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  9. >>sleepyday said it beautifully.

    Just more baying from the group-think tribalists.

    Green good, pragmatic person bad.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  10. Pragmatic? Don’t make me laugh.

    Before developing countries like China and India are prepared to think about how they will slow down their emissions – which are likely to rise from things like getting electric lights in all their houses – they want to see rich countries like ours doing something to reduce the impacts of our luxurious lifestyles . This is entirely reasonable.

    NZ just told them to get stuffed, we aren’t prepared to pull our weight. We think they should though. That’s not a pragmatic approach to climate negotiations, it’s counterproductive.

    If you don’t care about climate change, then sure, but thats another (now boring) debate

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  11. BS Valis.

    Tell me:

    -what percentage of global c02 NZ produces now
    -the temperature drop we can expect from our cuts
    -outline the opportunity cost of the spend

    I’m pragmatic. I’m the one asking reasonable questions based on the science. You’re the ones using the same stupid argument you always do “we should do X, just because”

    Get over this ridiculous idea that NZ leads the world and the rest follow. I’ve lived overseas for many years. New Zealand doesn’t lead anyone, anywhere. So long as we participate, no one gives a toss what level we’re at. They KNOW we’re not the problem. They KNOW the US & CHina are the problem.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  12. I recognise an inspired comment when I see one.

    sleepyday delivered a gem.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  13. >>NZ just told them to get stuffed, we aren’t prepared to pull our weight.

    They don’t care a TOSS what NZ does!

    Kiwis, get over yourselves with your over-inflated sense of self-importance. New Zealand counts for nothing except weird sheep stories once a year and what the All Blacks are doing, but only if you happen to be in the country that is playing them at the time.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  14. >>sleepyday delivered a gem.

    I thought it was the equivalent of the Bathhurst bogans yelling “Go Holden”.

    Those evil Ford people. We hate them…..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  15. “I thought it was the equivalent of the Bathhurst bogans yelling “Go Holden”.

    Those evil Ford people. We hate them…..”

    :D
    Too true
    Too true!!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  16. Mark my words, the NZ environment will be degraded because of this emissions trading nonsense, then who are you going to blame?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  17. They’ll blame you and me Shundra.

    Because we’re the Ford team. It’s always our fault.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  18. BP,
    For us to ask others to cut their contributions without ourselves making the cut is no different than pilfering from the store and then turning around and telling others not to do it. Or alternativly, arguing for nuclear disarmment while building up your own stockpile. Or arguing against animal cruilty when you beat your dog. Or arguing against slavery when you yourself own many slaves.
    NZ may be small but remmember that a country consists of many individuals, cutting emmisions, percentage wise, in china or america will only do more there than here because they have more people. For each person whom reduces alittle so does the reduction of the entire country decrease. If you argue that the reduction of a single person is irrelivant then you must argue the reduction of any country is irrelivant for all countries are nothing but a conglomeration of individuals. To sound very Thatcheress.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  19. No it isn’t.

    So if we ran coal plants and smokestacks in 1990, we’d be heroes now for not doing so?

    It makes no sense. How can we compare apples with oranges? We don’t have a tied, old industrial base. We don’t have coal plants about to be replaced by nuclear.

    We have a bunch of cows. And some trees.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  20. BP

    They DO give a toss. That’s the problem you have BP. They just TOLD you they give a toss. You want them to join in, a united OECD is needed, and how the hell you think this stupidity affects the Australians? How about the Americans if the Australians pull look at us for their own inspiration?

    You are handicapped by your failure to understand the psychology of human cooperation.

    You need to get over your own inflated sense of entitlement.

    I have ample reason to doubt your willingness to do anything no matter what ANYONE proves no matter how certainly it is understood.

    That makes you a rude noise BP, not someone to whom I am willing to listen.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  21. BP,
    The kyoto framework is absolute cr*p.
    It poorly written by idiots with no understanding of what needs to be done. It is assperational and will accheive none of its goals; it is classic UN bullsh*t.
    But the need for reductions is very real. The reductions do not need to be in gross output but in net output. We can have as many cows as we have now so long as we offset the emmisions through sequestration of the emmisions. It is true that we have less practical measures to reduce the gross emmisions but that we are able to reduce our emmisions through sequestration means that we have other avenues. It is my personal opinion that everyone should reduce net emmisions by 100%, anything else is just pushing back the date.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  22. “You need to get over your own inflated sense of entitlement”

    “That makes you a rude noise BP”

    These are gems!

    (but I thought we were to be polite to our guests, bj?) :-)

    BP is to Frogblog what PhilU is to Kiwiblog

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  23. Well, keep playing tribal games.

    My tribe won. Yours lost. Suck it up.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  24. Ok. Your ‘tribe’ has reacted to this serious situation in a truely spineless, selfish, irresponsible way. Only those similarly embued can’t see it.
    Tribal indeed!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  25. It’s not selfish. The science backs me, not you. You’re selfishly throwing away our money on posturing. Presumably it makes you feel self righteous. Fine by me, but not with my money, you don’t.

    Meanwhile:

    “Australia’s Senate rejected the government’s climate-change legislation, forcing Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to amend the bill or call an early election.

    Senators voted 42 to 30 against the law, which included plans for a carbon trading system similar to one used in Europe. Australia, the world’s biggest coal exporter, was proposing to reduce greenhouse gases by between 5 percent and 15 percent of 2000 levels in the next decade.

    Rudd, who needs support from seven senators outside the government to pass laws through the upper house, can resubmit the bill after making amendments. A second rejection after a three-month span would give him a trigger to call an election.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  26. Do you not find it sobering Blue, that the brightest and most experienced commenters here on Frogblog dismiss your views on this issue as nothing but ‘rude noise’?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  27. I see Australia are following New Zealands lead. Not.

    And if not them, then who, exactly?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  28. Doesn’t bother me in the slighest, Greenfly.

    It’s like being bothered by the “best and brightest” Jehovas Witness. They may argue well, within their own framework, but you just know they’re arguing backwards from an irrational monolithic conclusion.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  29. Someone forgot to tell Australia to follow New Zealands lead. Perhaps you can send Norman over to remind them?

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/it_should_have_been_defeated_because_its_insane/

    “It is also typical of this deceitful and spin-driven government to so cynically misrepresent the nature of carbon dioxide. Of course this whole extraordinary scheme, which would do so much damage to Australia, is based on the as yet unproven assertion that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are the main driver of global warming… The Rudd government arrogantly refuses to acknowledge that there remains a very lively scientific debate about the extent of and the main causes of climate change, with thousands of highly reputable scientists around the world of the view that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are not and cannot be the main driver of the small degree of global warming that occurred in the last 30 years of the 20th century…

    Australia contributes a little over one per cent of the planet’s CO2 emissions. If we were to completely shut down the Australian economy tomorrow, Australia’s
    CO2 emissions would be fully replaced by China within nine months. It is indisputably the case that nothing Australia does on its own can have any impact whatsoever on the earth’s climate. The deceit perpetrated by climate change fanatics that an Australian ETS will save the Barrier Reef is utterly contemptible… “

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  30. BP

    It is indeed “selfish” and the science backs the notion that something MUST be done. It doesn’t back “people”.

    You are simply saying that someone else has to do ALL the heavy lifting.

    That offends a different sort of science. As I noted above, you are completely neglectful or completely ignorant, of the social imperatives involved in getting a GROUP of people to work together to accomplish a task voluntarily.

    The only voluntary group action that results from your sort of politics is the erection of special machinery in a public square for the separation of torsos from the swollen heads of their owners.

    We’d have to oppose that, being Greens, but as noted many times, we aren’t a large portion of the population. Our views don’t count.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  31. >>It is indeed “selfish” and the science backs the notion that something MUST be done.

    We don’t know what that something is.

    >>As I noted above, you are completely neglectful or completely ignorant, of the social imperatives involved in getting a GROUP

    I do so. I also know that a group of full grown rugby players might notice little toddler tommy on the sidelines, but the idea they would make him captain is pure fantasy.

    The best little toddler tommy can hope for is to be noticed as “being present”.

    We simply don’t need to jump in boots and all. We just need to be present.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  32. BP

    What makes you think they is not encouraged by our example? They are using the same lame excuse you do, for not participating in the effort. Their 1 % our 0.2% Someone else’s 1% and the folks in the USA, who have their own problems with the banksters in charge, will look at it and say to themselves, well, if THEY aren’t going to then damned if we’re going to, and at that the Chinese will do the same.

    …and the planet is fncked, and our children are fncked and it is because people like YOU think you don’t have to be part of the solution.

    It is one of the disadvantages of being an Atheist. I can’t believe that you will get anything like a just reward for your arrogance.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  33. >>because people like YOU think you don’t have to be part of the solution.

    Stop being so offensive.

    I’m guessing my carbon footprint is better than that of many greenies.
    I just don’t buy into the same paper swapping scam you do.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  34. Rugby players? Not quite the best example (Who is on the opposing team?) but we can work with it. However, the problem is that you’ve missed badly. We’d be a 13-15 year old adolescent who is ON a team with some full grown players and some others about our size.

    Let’s assert that we’re trying to do something instead of playing Rugby, as there really isn’t an OPPOSING team.

    Trying not to die of asphyxiation in a collapsed mine shaft perhaps.

    Our attitude CAN affect the group. Can affect it a LOT more than our size. Our willingness to participate can well affect the outcome of the effort.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  35. Blue. I didn’t ask if it ‘bothered’ you. I can see that you are not ‘bothered’ by much at all. You can’t be ‘bothered’ doing anything other than that which you think benefits you and you alone.
    I’m amazed though, that you feel comfortable coming onto a green blog and spraying insults around like an incontinent tom cat. Just looking at the pattern you follow: quasi-reasonable discussions, a descent into provocative claims and then thinly veiled insults to your hosts. You are a badly mannered guest.
    Your carbon footprint may be better than many greenies, but your manners are not.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  36. btw – the irrational monolithic conclusion.
    that you liken us to having..
    that would be the expected effects of global warming, right?

    I thought you had accepted that there was an issue there, having found a book you could believe in, but it seems you change your beliefs as it suits.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  37. Morgan comes to the conclusion that we are dealing in an area of high uncertainty. Whilst it is likely man is playing a part in the increase in temperature, it is not clear if this is a significant problem. Policy should be more risk adverse than normal, they must not use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Substantial economic cost will kill those less well off.

    The “cure” could have worse outcomes than the cold.

    “That’s a huge responsibility for public policy. The last thing it can afford – in terms of national social and economic benefit – is to be held to ransome by myopic, single issue activists”

    We’re still in investigation mode….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  38. >>but your manners are not.

    I think you’ve missed the pattern.

    I give as good as I get.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  39. Peter – from your analogy, where you liken the Greens to the ‘Jehovas Witness’, you say that you disregard their views because they are arguing from a fundamentally flawed conclusion. Presumably you feel the same way about the Greens and it follows that you must think that the views held by Green commenters are flawed because of that. The arrogance of that position probably escapes you, but I’m keenly aware that whatever the discussion, however excellent it might be (and there are a great many excellent responses offered to you) you will simply dismiss them on those grounds. Could you be more arrogant?
    The only other commenter who does the same is Big Bro. Impressive company you keep.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  40. No BP…. we are NOT still in investigation mode.

    That’s part of your problem I guess. We have to do something… and if you read from page 21 in the FIRST chapter you will understand that he did say we have to do it before we are certain. He’s not as sure of himself on the science as I am, I know quite well what he had to hire people to tell him, but he is sure enough to allow that some of those policy decisions could kill people. And accept it. Which is why it IS a huge responsibility.

    Which you intend to shirk, for us as a nation to shirk.

    Willfully.

    Which begs the question of WHO he is referring to as a myopic, single issue activist.

    That we have to continue to investigate is not questioned. The difficulty is, and he is clear enough about it, is that we have to act without complete information. Which you appear to have forgotten by the time you got to chapter 8.

    Beware the man of one book.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  41. How I wish I had sleepyday’s way with words!

    BP. Its all right for you to comment from planet drivel – you don’t have the same issues we have here on planet earth!

    Magic!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  42. You’re not very nice to guests, Greenfly.

    So don’t act all surprised….

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  43. BP,
    Your logic is flawed, so much so it can hardly be called logic, even you should be able to see this. If you refuse to consider the arguement of your opponent, and evidently you do refuse to do such, then there is no point in your opponent continuing to argue but for the point of showing observers how flawed your thinking is.
    Stop making such pathetic attempts at rebuttals, esspecially where these rebuttals counter not only your own arguements to similar situations in prety much every matter you seem to be passionate about but also your own arguements on this very topic, it is just sad. It further decreases whatever credibility you may be seen to have as you writhe myopically in your own jelly trying to protect your short-term interests at the cost of not only the long term interests of everyone else but of yourself.
    Atleast come out and say honestly “Yeah, im just protecting my own short-term interests, I dont give a flying f*ck about anyone else, not even the future me”.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  44. From No Right Turn*:

    but do we want to hear from people with an OBVIOUS bias!!!??? Sheeesh!

    I mean NRT demands sacrifice but would NRT consider perverse incentives in the welfare system? No!

    I mean C’mooon, get a grip Green Party of Aotearoa/nz,
    Sheeesh! :mad:

    *Frog always surfaces from the left-side of the pond

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  45. >>We have to act without complete information

    Sure, but committing what amounts to economic suicide without knowing if that will achieve anything positive – whatsoever – is silly.

    That’s not a bet I’m willing to take, sorry. If I knew 40% would save the world, or damn us us if we did less, then of course, I’m with you. You don’t know it either – you’re placing a bet.

    Can’t you see my position? Baby, bathwater, hammer, nut……

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  46. Sapient – I think we’re just always talking past each other.

    Sam language, different frames.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  47. Nandor Tanczos Says:
    Before developing countries like China and India are prepared to think about how they will slow down their emissions – which are likely to rise from things like getting electric lights in all their houses – they want to see rich countries like ours doing something to reduce the impacts of our luxurious lifestyles . This is entirely reasonable.


    On the other hand it doesn’t mean they would do anything if we did lower our emissions. They will be aware of how our society has evolved.

    It is healthy to aim for a sustainable society for it’s own sake however.

    I don’t think the left is interested in a sustainable society any more than the right. For example if we take the pacific islands they have (arguably) past there carrying capacity. It doesn’t matter, however as we can absorb them in Aotearoa (remember the link between food, energy and fossil fuels). If Aotearo/NZ fills up then there is somewhere else that can take some population etc,etc. My point is that no one on the left will be green enough to draw a ring about a group of people in a geographical area and say “unsustainable”?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  48. BP,
    The world consists of upward from 6 billion people.
    Each person is an individual.
    Each person emits carbon through their daily consumption.
    This emission exceeds the carrying capacity of the planet.
    For every individual whom decreases their emissions the total emissions of the planet decreases.
    We represent 4 million of those 6 billion.
    Every one of us that reduces our emissions reduces the global emissions.
    The effect is small, but it is real.
    If other small groups like us do the same then there will be further reductions in global emissions.
    The size of the group matters only because greater size means greate numbers, a country is mearly a large group of people. Chinas emissions are larger than ours only because they have more people.
    Our group may be small but it has an effect none-the-less and thus we have a resonsibility should we wish to enjoy the profits of reductiones i.e. survival.
    Remmember, the state pays much money in the form of benefits, this money goes to individuals. Each additional individual means more money; getting one person off the dole means a small decrease in money going to the dole. Getting half the people off the dole is mearly getting many individuals off the dole, it is that incremental benefit from each additional individual that counts.
    Even if others arnt doing it, by doing it ourselves we gain a rock from which to argue, we eliminate our hypocracy. We gain an opportunity to make more incremental gains.

    Every small bit matters.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  49. Sapient – nice turn of phrase!

    as you writhe myopically in your own jelly

    Peter – I am generally polite to guests (I’m one myself) but trolls are a different story :-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  50. It was utter lunacy for NZ to sign up to the Kyoto protocol as long as 1990 was the base year. All but one of the 1st world industrialised nations had had strong economic and emissions growth in the 1970s and 1980s. None of the 2nd world industrialised nations did – not Poland, not Russia, not India, not China, not New Zealand. All of these 2nd world nations had to wait until the 1990s to experience the growth the first world had experienced in the 1980s. Most first world economies stagnated in the early 1990s, which is probably no coincidence.

    I’t pretty obvious why the first world countries refused to set the Kyoto base year any earlier than 1990 – they would have had to make genuine contributions to averting catastrophic climate change instead of being able to get away with token gestures or simpling tranferring high-carbon industries to the second world.

    New Zealand is the only first world country that is being piloried for “extraordinary” emissions growth since 1990 for the simple reason that we are the only 1st world country that ceased to be a 1st world country in the 1970s and thus didn’t participate in the 1980 emissions growth frenzy that the rest of the 1st world ‘enjoyed’.

    Our government is perfectly entitled to insist that the genuine 1st world countries make 40% reductions while we only aim for 20%. That is just another way of moving the “industrialised nations” target year from 1990 to 1980 and creating a level playing field for New Zealand.

    To get vehicle carbon emissions back to 1990 levels Uk only needs a 20% reduction whereas NZ needs a 35% reduction. But to return to 1980 levels UK needs a 48% reduction and NZ needs a 46% reduction – now that’s a level playing field :)

    I haven’t seen comparative stats for forestry/farming but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if they show the effect.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  51. BP

    I’m interested that you keep saying that “the science backs me, not you”.
    That sounds to me like those who say “The Bible says…..and therefore I’m right.”, while leaving out any issue of interpretation. What is more accurate is that your interpretation of the science backs you – which, of course, we can all say. There’s a helluva lot of people out there who are saying “No, BP, the science backs me, not you!” on the basis of their interpretation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  52. Sure, but committing what amounts to economic suicide without knowing if that will achieve anything positive

    Economic suicide would be following the directions of the economists and the banksters.

    http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?p=106493#post106493

    Suicide is simply doing nothing.

    As for “knowing” that it will achieve anything positive, perhaps you have forgotten that this is the only game in town.

    The only risks are that we MIGHT do more than is immediately necessary which could be avoided if we had perfect knowledge of the results of all our actions. In which case our kids have an easier time of it

    … or that we MIGHT not do enough in which case we’re toast.

    It is wiser in this case to err on the side of caution.

    Rather than on the side of inaction and denial.

    If we save the climate, we have time to fix other things that are broken or may break.

    If we do not, then there will be a lot more dying than adapting.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  53. Seen from a certain perspective, it hardly matters what target this government agrees to. The important question is whether NZ governments will ever have the gumption to stand up to existing vested interests and change the status quo.

    In my view, they haven’t made much more than token efforts for the last 20 years, and the answer to the question above is most probably no.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  54. It seems that this government is not interested in changing the status quo – we are on a drive to grow our economy which involves the practices that have got us into this situation.

    Forget the government and do it anyway because the solution involves a change in thinking by the ordinary man and woman. Governments come and go.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  55. If we think that New Zealand is clean and green we are very much deluded, nothing could be further from the truth.

    In our district alone a couple of dogs have died drinking the water from the Selwyn river, The Selwyn Plantation board has chopped down many acres of land and flogged it off to dairy conversion.

    It is almost as if they (the cockey fraternaty) are giving the fingers to the Kyoto Protocol. I think that NZ are polluting more than the European states yet our government tells them to pull more of their weight?

    BLOODY HYPOCRITES

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  56. All we need to do is talk like Australians when overseas and re-export our products via Australia to avoid any personal or economic consequences …

    More seriously – as for China, their one child policy may have been the most effective anti-global warming policy of any country of the last few decades.

    Quite seriously, the simple fact is we live in a world of finite resources, so even if “global climate change” was completely ignored, we would still have cause to ration our use of carbon. If we don’t, we face the eclipse of the old economy dependent on carbon – and the consequences of that will be felt before any GW caused climate change. The economic cost of that will outweigh any cost arising out of Kyoto.

    It would be intelligent to deal with our international obligations (Kyoto) and our own economic planning (for the consequences of Peak Oil etc) as part of a coherent policy programme (which is not just planting trees). This could still involve helping the third world with technology transfer – if it involved reducing their carbon dependency.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  57. Kevyn,

    I see the point you are trying to make, but it isn’t really that valid. 1990 was chosen as a base year because this was around the time that the issue of climate change was beginning to be taken more seriously. I don’t think there was any hidden agenda by the industrialised nations in setting 1990 instead of some other year. Any other year could have been chosen, but it wouldn’t affect the emissions reductions which need to be taken, all that would change would be the percentage of reductions relative to the new base year. Of course, your point is that with a different base year, New Zealand might have been able to get off more lightly, whilst still making the same percentage reduction as other nations. This may be so, but if you are really looking for a “level playing field”, every nation has to make whatever reductions are necessary to achieve per capita emissions of X tonnes per person, where X is whatever level is deemed necessary to prevent undesirable climate change. The atmosphere doesn’t care about percentage changes in emissions relative to some base year, it cares about the absolute amount of emissions.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  58. Given how little time we’ve got left to make emissions reductions before the predicted point-of-no-return, arguing about whether the treaty governing reductions is unfair is kinda like spending hours talking about who’s going to wash and who’s going to dry, all the while the dirt cakes on the damn dishes. :P

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  59. Ari – arguing about who should make the reductions is more like arguing over who should control the nozzle of the fire hose while the house burns down.

    Trevor.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  60. Samiuela, You quite correct in stating that the atmosphere cares only about the absolute reduction not the percentage reduction, and it does this globally. Unfortunately the Kyoto protocol only cares about each nation’s reductions within it’s borders, so if Britain reduces it’s emissions by reducing dairy production but maintains it’s dairy consumption by importing daory products from Nz it will result in Britain meeting it’s Kyoto target but with no actual change to global emissions and NZ failing to meet it’s target.

    By excluding international trade from the Kyoto protocol the affluent nations ensured that they could most easily comply in a way that doesn’t actually help the environment one iota. Very simply, Brits haven’t reduced the per capita amount of carbon emissions their consumption is responsible for, they have simply shifted the Kyoto responsibility onto the populations of less developed nations.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  61. Ari – arguing about who should make the reductions is more like arguing over who should control the nozzle of the fire hose while the house burns down.

    Trevor.

    Right, but not to the level our government is trying to do it, unfortunately.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  62. Does NZ target include agriculture – I think it does but others do not so perhaps before we all get in a lather we should compare like with like.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  63. freethinker – all targets “include agriculture”. It’s just whether or not a particular country wishes to exempt ag from their particular ETS. So, as far as targets are concerned, it’s like for like.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  64. I wandered over here for some comment on the cap-and-trade espousal/s evident in the news.. Not finding it I am now here and wish take some exception to poor olde ‘Blue Peter’ for his unhappy knack of selling enzed short with his island gambit.. viz only a tiny proportion of CO2 emissions etc.. thus.. insignificant… “irrelevant”.. sayeth BP.

    Will he take advice..? Perhaps ask himself how irrelevant the Canadian province of Alberta is on the same/similar terms..? Then go find out why exactly that Alberta’s legislators right now are in one big flap..

    Clue: today, yes right now, Alberta has an even bigger C-footprint than the USA.. and word is how upcoming american legislation makes clear a clause to impose tariffs on trading partners and wannabes who avail themselves in ‘competitive advantage’ from do nothing emissions reduction..

    Globalization hath obligations, too. And you can bet the obs overseers will workout on falterers.. as they should in the interests of folks able and willing do better for their planet.

    Today I heard a business spokesman in radio say how a cap would help business ‘come to terms’ with costs on a stepwise basis.. Given the above I’d have to say that Mr Finney of Wtn has a glass-have-full argument..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  65. Yes, thanks for that link, greenfly. I do read NRT and spotted the blog earlier w/o wholly taking it in.. that is to say a whole read.. tho the following point was well taken..

    According to Treasury, the current price of carbon is around $22/ton. So, if the government caps the price at a sub-market $10 / ton, then Holcim will be getting $12 million a year in pure profit gouged out of kiwi taxpayers as an environmental subsidy.

    Which, of course, very well illumines the american need of a pre-emptive clause like for Alberta and wannabes..

    Given the nature of global corporate trade and trading we might refer to such things as re-balancing the growth-by-greed principle so evident.

    When folks – non-polluters all I daresay – wake up to such whys and wherefores, why wouldn’t the insight add grist to their mill..

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

The ability to post further comments on this blog will return after the election.