just when to do all of our governments take CO2 emissions seriously and do something about it??? and surely the largest nations which are most guilty of it need to act – look at all the gas gussling cars the US drive yet they keep fuel costs low enough to allow them to drive them .. lets do something for our children and their children before its toooo late

anyway have some fun and play cafe world for a while – at Cafe World Domination

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

If New Zealand had actually started introducing measures to limit and then reduce our CO2e emissions when we signed the Kyoto protocol, we would probably stand to make quite a bit of overseas income from it. Successive governments didn’t so now we all pay the price.

Trevor.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Have to agree with you there. The Green Party favoured a carbon tax rather than an emissions market, but didn’t get support.

The stupid thing about the approach of the NatLabs is that a sustainable lifestyle will probably work out cheaper in the long run anyway, more so with carbon pricing and inevitably when peak oil/gas/coal/uranium strike.

Trevor.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Trevor, the more reading I do on the subject to more I realise there are a range of ways to interpret what is going on with the climate.
It is such a broad area of research and includes so much reliance on poorly understood interactions that I think you can pretty much make the “science” say what ever you want it to.
Do we need to prepare? yes I think we do, but we need to do the harder work of promoting a sustainable lifestyle, not hand the bl@ody wolves another market.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

shunda: you said “I also believe that to date AGW activism has had a serious negative effect on the environment, the recent deforestation in my region certainly testifies to that.”

New Zealand signed the Kyoto protocol ages ago, as the result of AGW activism. The recent deforestation can’t really be blamed on the fact that we signed the protocol. Instead, the blame should lie with those who mismanaged (or more accurately failed to manage) the transition to a regime which incorporated the Kyoto protocol. When rules were announced, it was only natural for groups such as farmers to “game the system” to maximise their profits or minimise their losses – entirely predictable and a direct consequence of the way those rules were introduce. Had Labour and National acted sooner and with more care, this would not be happening.

Trevor.

PS: Which part of the science of AGW do you not believe is settled?

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

i concur with the ‘odd fullstop’..

and would add..’eyewateringly boring’

(‘no disrespect..!..you understand..!..

..this is just how it is..!’..)

phil(whoar.co.nz)

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Thanks Tobias. The British National Cycle Network is the template we have been steering Nga Haerenga (the name of the NZ Cycle Trail)towards -a network of cycling/walking routes, paths and tracks that can be used for tourists, but also work for people commuting to work or school, or just having a good time at the weekend. Without our involvement it seems unlikely to me that it would be moving in this direction.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

“No. You’re just odd fullstop.”

I’m happy with my oddness BLiP, rather be odd than nasty.

Like or Dislike: 2  0 (+2)

No. You’re just odd fullstop.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

“You mean willing to go over it all AGAIN. How many times has it been now? Some of you guys are saintly in your patience, I have to say.”

Guys this is a blog for crying out loud, its not like I am wasting valuable company time.
And in my defence you guys should be willing to “educate” some one that you clearly think is deluded but is still engaging in conversation none the less.
I am not trolling and I think it is fair to say I have slowly become a lot more civil in my “blogside manner” of recent months. May be I am just an oddity in political no man’s land or just odd, but I certainly don’t have sinister motives for being here as Phil repeatedly suggests.
I will now read all your links out of respect for all the “saintly patience” you have all shown.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

I got to use the UK cycle network about six years ago and I was amazed at how awesome it was. It wasn’t just a tourist and leisure amenity but a real transport network, especially when combined with bike lockers on the trains. One time especially I went to visit friends in a small village 97 miles from London so I took the train and biked from the local station; it took a little bit longer than by car but was still an easy day trip.

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Naaa…. they don’t actually do anything naughty

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Visceral? Carnal.

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

Perhaps this will appeal to the more visceral side?

http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/10/cameron-russell-supermodels-take-it-off-for-climate-change/

Like or Dislike: 0  0 (0)

I’m surprised people here are willing to go over it all for your benefit.

You mean willing to go over it all AGAIN. How many times has it been now? Some of you guys are saintly in your patience, I have to say.

Anyway, frog must have been listening, so this thread should now transfer here:
http://blog.greens.org.nz/2009/11/12/how-the-ipcc-works/

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Here ya go Shunda – have a wee read of this (for example)

http://www.thestandard.org.nz/stupid-stupid-stupid/

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)

Shunda – you’re willfully ignoring the obvious. I’m surprised people here are willing to go over it all for your benefit. If you read what bj and sapient said, regarding AGW, regardless of your view as to its veracity, you’d understand that the position you’ve taken is wrong.
Wrong old chappie.
You are a straw-clutcher Shunda, dodging and weaving, pulling ‘but ifs’ and ‘what abouts’ out of the air to avoid facing reality (but the beech forests, the smacking, Michael Cullen!! You can’t expect me to take climate change seriously while those outrages are on my mind!!!)

Like or Dislike: 2  0 (+2)

Like or Dislike: 3  0 (+3)

Shunda,
I’m not exactly sure what your position is but the position that we should do nothing unless the climate science is absolutely settled is not a reasonable one for a number of reasons.
Given the science at present we can make a reasonable guess as to the probability of it happening and the probability of it being detrimental. Even assuming it was much smaller than it was, it would still be worth making the change. Even were the chances small, the ‘prize’ is massive, even the runners up are pretty nasty.
Ignoring the climate effect, and thus that which is debatable, to not enforce carbon trading is to steal profits from owners of forests to subsidize the burners of fossil fuels. That is a good that the owners are supplying to the commons and not being paid for and a good removed from the commons by the factories which then don’t pay for that good. Theft.

Like or Dislike: 2  0 (+2)

For some people the science will be settled when you can only visit Te Papa in a Waka

?

BJ

Like or Dislike: 1  0 (+1)