It’s hard to believe but it seems as though the election campaign will finish without any serious debate about the great moral and ethical issue of our time – climate change.
I spoke for Internet-Mana at the Climate Voter debate last week in Auckland’s Q Theatre where along with the Greens, Labour, National, New Zealand First and the Maori Party we discussed the major issues related to climate change and how New Zealand can limit our damage to the environment such that life on earth as we know it will be able to continue.
I should say a special thanks to Greenpeace and the other groups involved in this event – without it climate change may never have seen the light of day at all in the election campaign.
However while the event was important it failed to gain any significant mainstream media coverage.
So why the lack of coverage and why is this not the hottest topic (pardon the pun) in the campaign?
As with so many other issues the mainstream media will only take notice if they see a significant difference in policy between Labour and National. This is still seen as the centre of political debate.
On climate change both National and Labour support the Emissions Trading Scheme as the way to deal with greenhouse gas emissions and limit carbon entering the atmosphere.
Labour introduced the ETS after it backed away from a carbon tax (the so-called fart tax) in the face of a farmer backlash.
The fact the ETS has been an abject failure is lost on National and Labour who still look for private market solutions to the crisis of climate change.
The simple truth is that capitalism (with its endless quest for growth and short-term profit making) and the environment are on a collision course. Either the environment will survive or humanity will be stuffed.
It was clear from the audience in Q Theatre that people want a multi-party accord on climate change. It’s easy to understand why and yet it’s equally easy to see how difficult it will be to achieve given the softly-softly approach of Labour and National lest they upset “the markets” or their corporate donors.
Whatever the outcome of the election all parties should commit to work inside and outside parliament to promote a cross-party consensus on this greatest of issues facing all humanity.
New Zealand led the world before in the many firsts we are rightly proud of: women’s suffrage, the welfare state, anti-apartheid action and our anti-nuclear policy. We can and should be the global leader on climate change if for no other reason than future generations will examine the history of this time to find the seeds of humanity’s survival and will be surprised and delighted to find it all started here in Aotearoa.
We live in crazy times, where everyone knows there must be change, but everyone wants someone else to do the changing. In this country, a vital area that needs to change is agriculture where the monoculture approach extracts carbon from the soil at a massive rate of up to 5 tonnes per hectare. Alternatives have been developed, but they do not suit the massive industrial scale model that has been adopted. It is blindingly obvious that on September 20th, we must go beyond just seeing a different colour tie worn by the new PM, we must see a move away from serving the self interest of the few.
Unfortunately John it doesn’t matter what ‘we’ do now, there is nothing we can do to stop what we set in motion hundreds if not thousands of years ago, or 4-5 billion people ago.
AND the people just do not want to know.
They had a punch of want to be politicians on National radio on Sunday, discussing all sorts of planet destroying policies, like a fair/living wage, free Doctors visits, full employment, warm houses etc etc.
Futile shit.
The planet is in a worse situation as far as human environment is concerned than it was during the last great extinction event 55 million years ago.
Back then all the oil, coal and gas was safely sequested under ground, and the frozen methane had been thawing, converting to CO2 and falling out of the sky.
Were as now ‘we’ have gazillions of tons of CO2e (Methane CH4) ready to burst out of the unavoidable melting ice ant day.
The last time the planet was @ 400 CO2 it was +6 degrees Celsius above what it is now, and the oceans were 26 meters higher. The only reason we aren’t there yet is because of the low temperatures in the deep ocean and what is left of the global ice. BUT within the next 30 – 40 years most of that ice will have melted, and then that melting energy will go into heating the atmosphere, and melting what will be left of Greenland.
Another thing ‘they’ aren’t telling you (because they don’t know I guess – ignorance is bliss) is that ‘we’ are near 2 ppm CH4, which sounds like small change compared to 400 ppm CO2 BUT (another one) CH4 is equivalent to about 300 PPM CO2 …… so 2 ppm CH4 could be as much as 600ppm CO2e, plus the other gasses and the current negative feed back of global dimming, which could mean the planet is currently at about 1,150 ppm CO2/e NOW.
The only way to avoid climate change induced human suffering now is to stop producing humans )) but that would go down like a cup of cold sick.
And the fact that this will not get posted, just adds to my argument, because clearly no fucker wants to talk about this stuff, so …. we go extinct ……..
BUT then I said that at the start, so lets just keep this bit of correspondence between you and me
Oh my god, someone actually said it out loud! Over population!
Over-population is indeed the problem and without addressing this major problem we are totally f*cked. We can recycle, reuse, and piss around with pathetic schemes to make cars get an extra km/litre, but it will make zero difference. The planet simply cannot cope with our population, and it’s set to double in the next 50 years. Either we address this or nature will exterminate us. Simple. Thanks for saying it out loud Robert. God, I dare you to say it at a National party meetup thou – “off with his head!”
I know 50 copies of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_VpyoAXpA8 was given to the national party back in 2005
My god, I’m not alone out here. Robert, I’ve found a brother…. 😉
“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.”
To summarise the video Robert links to, at a growth rate of just 2% we double our population every 35 years. (70/2). We live in a world of finite resources, that kind of growth rate is simply unsustainable.
My personal belief is that we will over-populate to such an extent that we will eventually be decimated by a super-virus, due to simple overcrowding and its assc issues.
Anyway, no matter what happens the planet will be claimed back from us eventually, all we can do to delay the inevitable. And to do that we control population and look after our planet. We are currently failing miserably at both, and current govts are failing to lead to to change this situation.
I’ve been banging on about it for a while and can see no other solution, we must begin to talk about this, and yes it will go down like a cup of cold sick, but I, for one, will applaud the person in a position of leadership who says “Hey guys, we gotta talk”.
But I fear we will not do it in an orderly fashion, it will be catastrophic and unpleasant.
I probably won’t be here when it happens by my kids and my grandkids will be.
It can be done in a more orderly fashion and all it takes is educating women and giving them the control of their own fertility. When this happens birth rates drop dramatically for a number of reasons. Women choose to have fewer children, many women choose not to have any at all and in general they delay their childbearing.
Now all we need is a new philosophy that explains how we can prosper without growth. Tim Jackson’s book may be a start
I would disagree with some of the details in your argument, but that would detract from my agreement with your overall point.
Yes. There are too many Homo sapiens sapiens on this planet. Yes, we need to reduce our numbers.
How?
Easy.
Trust women to control their fertility and give them the resources to do so. In countries with low fertility rates they have high rates of education for women, and higher levels of respect for women. Its not just GDP.
I’m doing my bit so far. I’ve produced only one child, and that’s it.
If I could drive a car made from hemp fibres powered by hemp oil and solar electricity, I would.
Keep this to yourself John and Martyn .
Abrupt climate change: Evidence and options for the future
When: Wednesday, 22 October, 5.30 pm
Where: WG126, Sir Paul Reeves Building, AUT University City Campus, Mayoral Drive
Public lecture by Professor Emeritus Guy McPherson
Abrupt climate change is under way. Earth has warmed only 0.85 C since the Industrial Revolution began, but considerable evidence points toward increasingly rapid warming in the near future. For example, industrial civilisation has produced about twice as much atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1970 as before that time. There is about a 40-year lag between carbon dioxide emissions and warming, suggesting abundant warming is already locked into the planetary system. In addition, atmospheric methane has joined carbon dioxide as a major contributor to planetary warming. It appears the much-dreaded “clathrate gun” has been fired in the Arctic Ocean.
http://robinwestenra.blogspot.co.nz/2014/09/guy-mcpherson-in-new-zealand.html
And yet there has been NO warming for how long now??
http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-warming-1409872855-lMyQjAxMTA0MDAwNTEwNDUyWj
“The fact the ETS has been an abject failure is lost on National and Labour who still look for private market solutions to the crisis of climate change.”
John, you give them too much credit. The abject failure of the ETS is exactly as designed – the perception of action while effectively maintaining the status quo.
Does Tim Groser impress you as a person who actually gives a fuck about climate change? He struck me as Mr. Just-Enough – and that’s just enough to provide a window dressing and no more.
His comment in the debate that there were no transNational supporters there speaks volumes about him and where his party’s supporters rank climate change on their list of priorities. They have no mandate from their supporters to take meaningful action let alone position NZ as a world leader on climate change action: absolutely the place that we should be holding in line with our history (as you pointed out) and its size, immediacy and impacts.
The uncomfortable reality is that Westminster-democracy isn’t up to dealing with a problem like climate change. And that’s a debate that’s as likely to be exercised as the debate on climate change itself.
Hello John,
If you’re waiting for the main stream media to take global warming seriously then you’d best get a canoe and life jacket. In 35,000 hours of peak hour viewing on TV3 and TV1 in NZ in the last ten years there’s not been a single documentary, discussion or debate on global warming, not even one hour (unless you include the “Great Global Warming Swindle” shown on TV 3 some years ago. So the only documentary shown by our two major TV broadcasters was an anti-global warming diatribe. How cynical can one get?) It might be the fact that TV gets about over one third of its peak hour advertising revenue from car and car-related advertising that explains this. I have lived in NZ for thirty years, and whilst NZ has had a few historical firsts to its credit, dealing with global warming is not going to be one of them. Indeed, you could say that if NZ can’t take a leadership position here, then name me another country better placed to do so? Being a “fast follower” is as you know a self-serving moral cop-out. No-one who follows a glacier can ever be a “fast follower”. NZ’s appalling performance both under National and Labour doesn’t surprise me in the least, it is a major ethical failure of this country. But then, what country is doing that much better? You will also understand that the ETS was bound to be a failure, it was designed and introduced by free-market fundamentalists pursuing the same ideas that has brought the world economy to a precipice. Many billions of dollars have been siphoned out of the public purse, especially in Europe, under this absurd scheme. No successor scheme, if based on the same sort of principles, will be any better. You haven’t noted here the Green’s proposal for a carbon tax and the redistribution of receipts to the citizens. This is similar to George Monbiot’s and, separately, Prof James Hansen’s proposals. It is certainly the soundest idea so far, it needs support and as I say, it’s a pity you haven’t mentioned it. We also, for the moment, need to entirely forget methane and forestry in any carbon regime. These are complicating factors of much lesser importance – they can be calculated for scientific interest, but not for policy making. It would substantially simplify things for this country and would make a carbon tax a bit more acceptable perhaps. It’s a pity the Greens haven’t thought this through properly. Dealing with methane and forestry to reduce global warming is the equivalent of my worrying about my diabetic patient’s exercise and diet, which of course are important and shouldn’t generally be disregarded, but when the the condition urgently needs insulin we have to deal with this first, or the patient might die. The urgent problem for the planet is fossil fuels, and that’s the thing we need to be concentrating on. A carbon tax and direct redistribution in equal amounts to each citizen is by far the best solution, unless John you’ve thought of a better one!
Worth a watch ?
http://vimeo.com/99455948
22 After
“Consider this a prequel to Cormic McCarthy’s “The Road”
Comments are closed.