With A Little Help From Our Friends: A Climate Change Thought Experiment.



TRY THIS on for size. The Aliens arrive. Their vast Mother Ship suddenly materialises several hundred-thousand kilometres distant from Earth. Soon after, a smaller craft enters the Earth’s atmosphere and activates a device which produces an effect indistinguishable from the Electro-Magnetic Pulse of a nuclear explosion. All electronic communication systems are instantly rendered inoperative. At the same time the Alien intruder releases a swarm of objects which home-in on and sever the undersea fibre-optic cables that carry 90 percent of our Internet traffic across the planet. Shortly afterwards, a second swarm locates and destroys every last one of the world’s communication satellites. In the space of a single day, human communications technology is wound back to the capabilities of the eighteenth century.

Global chaos ensues. The impossibly complex structures of global finance, utterly dependent on near-instantaneous communications, are rendered useless. The banking system collapses. Ordinary people cannot access their accounts. No one knows what is happening because their governments cannot communicate with them except by means of the printed word – and sorting out how to do that effectively is taking a while! The global population is teetering on the brink of blind panic.

It’s at this point that the Aliens release millions of communications droids. These nifty little machines are able to hover above human settlements and broadcast messages to people in their own languages. Using these droids, the Aliens tell the human species why they have come, and what they now expect it to do. Failure to comply will result in the instant sterilisation of the offending individuals and/or communities. Violent resistance will be quelled by the deployment of military technology well beyond the capability of human weapons to neutralise – all those involved will die.

The Aliens explain their orders by referencing the rapidly deteriorating condition of the planet’s biosphere. Since this deterioration is the consequence of human activity, rather than the condition of the star around which the planet orbits; or catastrophic weaknesses in the planet’s crust; intervention has been ordered by the Galactic Federation. The latter has decided that human-beings are to be saved from themselves.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

The objective of this thought experiment is for you, the reader, to consider what saving humanity from itself might entail. The invention of the Alien Intervention Force establishes the necessary mechanism for compelling global co-operation. Bluntly, it is the absence of such a force that is rendering the urgently needed action against climate change so difficult. With the arrival of the Aliens, however, that is no longer a problem. With its capacity for resistance eliminated, humanity can now be forced to undertake the remedial action which, so far, it has refused to undertake voluntarily.

As you consider the necessary steps towards planetary recovery, it is important to bear in mind that the Galactic Federation’s priority is the salvation of the human species. With technology equal to the challenge of moving swiftly about the Milky Way Galaxy, it is obviously within the Alien Mother Ship’s power to destroy the organism responsible for putting Earth’s biosphere under such pressure. This is not, however, regarded as an acceptable option. Aware of how rare it is for one of the many life forms existing in the galaxy to evolve to the point where its own activity is putting at risk the environment which sustains it, the Galactic Federation has ruled out simply wiping humanity from the planet’s scarred and sweltering face.

Nor is the Alien Intervention Force at all keen on sanctioning a geo-engineering solution to the planet’s climate crisis. Even at their level of technological sophistication, the Aliens are unable to calculate all the variables involved. Experience on other planets has taught them that what looks like a straightforward and simple geo-engineering solution to a species’ problem can unleash so many unforeseen and catastrophic ecological consequences that the “cure” turns out to be worse than the complaint.

What, then, should the Alien Intervention Force instruct humanity to do? Should we abandon the cities? Master permaculture? Become vegans? Steer clear, like Tolkien’s hobbits, of machines “more complicated than a forge-bellows, a water-mill, or a hand-loom”? Given the process’s insatiable demand for carbon, should we even smelt metal at all? Was civilisation a bad idea? Should we return to a hunting and gathering mode of existence? Except, would that be the outcome the Galactic Federation was seeking? After all, their civilisation obviously managed to avoid or overcome the problems currently afflicting Planet Earth.

I simply don’t know – so, let’s hear your ideas. Use the comments function to send in your solutions. And, while you’re at it, try to come up with a suggestion or two as to how we might muster sufficient strength to impose a human solution to the problem of Climate Change. Because, the chances of that Mother Ship materialising somewhere out there, beyond the Moon’s orbit, to save the day, are as vanishingly small as the likelihood of an alien civilisation finding a way to travel faster than the speed of light.




  1. Careful what you invent Chris! The Pentagon’s eyes and ears are everywhere.
    Those aliens probably already did the same to their own planet and found a way through it. Or perhaps that it was never a problem at all. Pollution and poisoning the environment yes , but CO2 is the stuff of life not the stuff of extinction. Meanwhile our obsession with it is distracting us from the real pollution of the planet via insecticides and hormones that finish up in the sea and rivers interfering with all sorts of life forms.
    But the climate change panic is a chance to focus attention on an aspect of life on earth that is probably within our ability to address , largely because it seems to cure itself naturally. And that is that at some point humanity has to recognise that the unlimited expansion of one species’ population on one planet is not indefinitely sustainable. And if we want to have other animals around we have to share resources.
    So as China did years ago a limit on family size might need to be imposed, except that it evidently doesn’t. All the societies that have reached a level of our standard of living have a quite natural and universal reduction in birth rate that would take care of this problem quite automatically. The pill does seem to end up polluting the environment in ways that interfere with the reproduction of some other species and that needs to be fixed, but it can be. All we need to do is make sure that countries esp in Africa that have a terrible standard of living and no access to birth control are able to share , at least in the wealth that their own country contains. It is pretty obvious that a more even distribution of wealth throughout the population of the world would solve the problem automatically. Unless of course we all parboil in eleven years, but I’m pretty relaxed about that improbability.
    D J S

    • Looking again at the plea of Chris’s last paragraph… Perhaps the most useful thing do do would be to convince me and people like me of the veracity of the claims of what the extra CO2 will do. Bearing in mind that I have totally accepted that argument without question for over 30 years and acted in many ways to minimise my own emissions. It was doing my own research and my own thinking that has made me a sceptic over the last 6 months.
      This research has not resulted in all the answers I would like to have found though some questions seem to me so critical and obvious that they must be known. Can any one tell me …
      If the sea warmed up by 1.7 degrees C , how much CO2 would that put into the atmosphere without any contribution from mankind?
      If just the surface of the sea (top 20 meters) warmed by 1.7 C how much would that increase the CO2 content of the atmosphere by.?
      A NZ wellington government scientist began in the mid 1940s to measure the C14 % of CO2 in the atmosphere ; as did a scientist in Europe soon after Norway I think. C14 is created in the atmosphere by bombardment from gamma rays from outside the solar system they think, and is assumed to be constant , so the atomic half life of C14 being about 5800 years gives the carbon dating technique it’s basis. It is only formed in the atmosphere.
      The annual measurement of atmospheric C14 content revealed that it almost doubled during the period of atmospheric nuclear testing from 1946 till’63 , carried on a bit longer by the French. After the atmospheric ban that near doubling took 11 years to reduce to half the increase, and another 11 years to halve again. This seems to me to have given an extraordinarily good indication of how long a CO2 molecule can be expected to stay in the atmosphere , half gone in 11years, three quarters gone in 22 years, pretty much all turned over by 100 years into the sea and the biosphere. How is the calculation made that I heard yesterday by a scientist for the IPCC that it will remain for hundreds of thousands of years? How do they assess that?
      How is it argued by IPCC that water vapour contributes 30 to 60 % of the greenhouse effect when WV averages about 4000ppm and is 1.6x as efficient a GHG as CO2? How can it be less than the sceptics assessment of 95% + ? . Why if WV itself is driven by the CO2 contribution does it not multiply it’s own effect?
      Obviously WV effects the cooling of the surface by transporting heat of evaporation into the troposphere. Why would it’s cooling effect not accommodate a tiny increase in CO2’s contribution without noticing that it came from CO2 and not some other contributing factor.
      Politicians are busy people who don’t have tome to do their own research; but like Putin though more cautious I suspect that many if not most are closet sceptics.Putin’s not in the closet . But climate change denial in this “climate” is political suicide. So they all (except Trump) have to give lip service to the idea whatever their private doubts. What would be the political fallout from arguing with Greta? You would never recover.
      I suspect that the critical thing to get action from politicians is to actually convince them all , and that would be like convincing me. It would require convincing answers to the above questions and many more that are not being provided by the IPCC. It’s just ” believe us , we are 97% of climate scientists “. Untrue in itself.
      So convince me and the world will be saved.
      D J S

  2. The once over quoted “hell is other people” from a French existentialist comes to mind here–particularly at Rugby World Cup time. Human duality–capable of so much, yet still rutting beasts beneath, our short term thinking habits, and hubris, sees us well on the way to self inflicted extinction. Or at least, for those outposts remaining, a “Mad Max” futurist mockery of what could have been in the 21st Century.

    Uneven societal development across the planet, armed capitalist appropriation of resources, and elite technology developing almost virally to AI stage–all part of our dilemma.

    Global measures are needed, such as reducing the total number of people, and retiring private ownership of production and distribution. The understanding is obviously just not there among enough of the world’s population to achieve what is needed in the time available. When authoritarians willing to burn the Amazon down are seen as a solution by the masses, we are collectively very close to being beyond help.

    But the 7 million that “Climate Struck” last week show that spontaneous movements can still happen. “Adult” general strikes could easily bring the world to a grinding halt and be a precursor to various revolutions and a fundamental shift in class power. But such mass action would also likely provoke mass slaughter with some of the crazies currently in charge of awesome chemical, conventional and nuclear weapons. Or it could succeed and save the earth, just.

    The utopian scenario of a lower population with a light footprint, technology at our service and global unity of peoples is the goal, but I am deeply pessimistic for my son’s chances of seeing anything other indeed than a “Fortress NZ.” in a collapsed world.

  3. First thing to recognise is that a lot of old people would die pretty quickly as the supply of pharmaceuticals was cut. And advanced medical care like heart stents and hip replacements would not be possible, so our life span would shrink rapidly.
    That is if the elderly survived the de-populating of the cities as people spread out to find food.

  4. It’s worth noting that there’s lots of good news out there in terms of actual, technical capability to create a low-emissions economy. For instance, solar photovoltaics are now a hundred times cheaper in real terms than when the Friends of the Earth had a stand at Nambassa. And batteries have advanced to the point that they will sustain a vehicle for 500 km on one charge or a million miles (1.6 million km) between battery replacements. And so on, and so forth. A Green New Deal thus makes perfect sense.

    Interestingly enough, when I was working for North Shore City Council in the 2000s, some of the Clark Govt’s ministers were keen on a scheme for making New Zealand an international test bed for green technologies, similar to the approach followed in a number of other island nations and states anxious to wean themselves off imported oil, from Iceland to Hawai’i. Lots of new technologies are in fact tried out in NZ, e.g., we have the Southern Hemisphere’s automotive proving ground close to Queenstown. And so on. The ministers also thought this was a good way of kickstarting New Zealand’s industrial revival and thus reversing some of the most harmful effects of Rogernomics, in that sense. But the idea was,apparently, Sir-Humphreyfied by neoliberals in the public services, and we heard no more about it.

  5. One clear fact is that our globalist market dominated laissez faire capitalist and monetary systems are peculiarly unsuited to the necessary management of the planet’s resources and it’s preservation , irrespective of whether CO2 emissions are the most important concern.
    D J S

  6. ” The Aliens arrive…”
    But they’re already here.
    They’re us.
    I think the problem for most of us is that we just can’t come to terms with the fact that we were given one shot at it and we blew it.
    Why we blew it and how we might fix it is now an irrelevant ponder.
    Having children from this point on should be considered very carefully lest we consign them to a miserable existence then an equally miserable death.
    Oh? Wait? But that’s ‘life’ in general tho.
    And why are we so suddenly concerned about our biosphere when we’ve been mean to each other for centuries? Even today, when such things should be considered unthinkable and not tolerated, parents in hell-on-earth countries must watch their skeletal little kids die in their arms from starvation while we Kiwi’s throw enough food out a day to feed a village for months and I must mention; watching the banksters here manipulate our agrarian primary industry into a hate-able pastime while our otherwise fertile lands are being drowned in cow piss so that fontera exec’s can take home multi million dollar salaries and bonuses would be hilarious if it were not so monstrous.
    I think the bottom line is that we humans are, in fact, full of shit. We talk shit, write shit, think shit and have shit for brains.
    There are no solutions @ CT. There’re just short term survival strategies now.
    I know ! Lets move to AO/NZ ! ?
    Oh? Wait? We’re here already! Yay !
    Whale farming then! That’s the ticket.
    Read this.

  7. Don’t worry – it is possibly all being taken care of right now :

    “Is Earth under the watchful eye of “lurking” extraterrestrial spy probes? One US physicist argues that while it’s a distant possibility – it wouldn’t hurt to send out probes of our own to take a look and make sure.
    Physicist and independent SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) researcher James Benford posited that nearby asteroids that track with Earth’s orbit – also known as co-orbitals – would make the ideal place for an otherworldly spy post. He published his findings, titled “Looking for Lurkers,” in the peer-reviewed Astronomical Journal last month.

    “A probe located nearby could bide its time while our civilisation developed technology that could find it, and, once contacted, could undertake a conversation in real time,” Benford wrote in the paper. (RT 2/1019)

    And I suggest that if aliens can do better than humans, then that would be truly wonderful, as planet earth deserves much better than we are, or ever will be.

  8. If there really was a ‘climate emergency’, the major nations would be doing something about it but they’re not, so I doubt it’s an urgent a problem, once all the political polemic is removed.

    However, let’s for the sake of this discussion, let’s look at our options for eliminating CO2 emissions:

    In NZ we can be 100% renewable fairly easily. We’re already about 80% renewable so a couple more geothermal stations, some solar and wind and we’re almost there. Maybe another dam or two to provide pump storage for the additional wind and solar generating capacity.
    However this is not the case in most of the rest of the world. Germany tried to convert to wind power and failed. All the high latitude industrial nations will not benefit from solar. Their only practical solution is to adopt nuclear on a wide scale.

    Is used exclusively for light vehicles. How do we replace it? Current EVs are not a full solution. They might be good for use as a second car but with their current range limitations they’re simply not there yet. The next generation of batteries will be better. An off-shoot of Tesla says it’s fixed the problem with Lithium metal batteries with a new coating for the cathodes. This will reduce battery weight by a third and allow a million kms lifespan.
    Of course all that new electrical demand has to come from somewhere. So our electrical grid will require a total replacement to cope with all those cars being charged. It will also require a few hundred MW of additional generational capacity, so that feeds back into the electricity generation issue.

    Here we have a problem. There is no electrical equivalent for long range road haulage. You may say electrified trains, but they would only meet a tiny fraction of the need.

    This is what drives the world’s ships. The only theoretical replacement would be nuclear. The Yanks do it and the Russians do it. If its done properly there is little risk but the standard of crewman would need to be much better than it is now. Nuclear powered container ships! How cool would that be!

    This is another problem. There is no technical solution to jet fuel replacement. None. If you wanted to travel overseas you would have to go by nuclear cruise liner. It’s all looking like a steampunk future!

    Maybe we are living on a 4 billion planet, not a 9 billion planet and we should just reduce the population. Already large parts of the western world have a fertility rate far lower than replacement (All of Europe, much of North Africa and all of Japan) so maybe we should be offering aid to the 3rd world that is contingent on massive contraception or sterilization schemes. Maybe that should be the topic of the next climate conference….but I’m not holding my breath.

    • Andrew, the delay between emission reductions and atmospheric improvements is decades. If you are looking only at reducing – and not eliminating – fossil fuel emissions as your only strategy, I suggest you don’t have a full awareness of the impact of climate change on the rest of the systems that currently support our present lifestyle.

      Even if we are looking only at transportation. Electric trucks that have 400km range and 26 tonnes are already being trialled in Europe and are readying for commercial fleets within the next five years. Linked to an improved, resilient rail service this range would be sufficient for NZ. Cargo ships are looking at electric and hydrogen systems, although NZ’s geographical location makes it too far for pure electrical, which is why Northport (Whangarei) is investigating hydrogen fuel options. Electric private vehicles, might have reduced emissions, but the use of materials for construction and the money having to be invested in road infrastructure need to be included in calculations of benefit. Ultimately, a reliable, affordable public transport system is a far better social, environmental and financial investment.

      Climate change is affecting many – if not all – of the planet’s species, changing environments faster than evolutionary changes can adapt to. We are not in the middle of the sixth mass extinction without reason. We don’t value the interconnectedness of our human wellbeing with that of the planet or other species.

      Climate change adaptations without talking about climate justice will continue to place most of the burden of the negative impact on the poor and underdeveloped. How much do we – as members of a developed country – wish to continue to use of the existing carbon budget, while others who have contributed much less to the situation – continue to be impacted, and are continually denied the basics of healthy living?

      Food stability and access to clean water is already an issue where climate change or environmental conditions have disrupted these in other countries. Multiply this occurrence, and you begin to get a grasp on what may occur over a fairly short amount of time.

        • Sorry, you missed the point while indulging in your own thoughts.

          You might want to keep up with what is going on. (Although, as I pointed out previously, technological changes will not be enough by themselves. Bigger changes in values and expectations will be required.)

    • You should read some trucking mags Andrew because that industry has already developed hydro-electric trucks ready for fleet purchase in 2021 they are miles ahead of cars I think.

  9. The first problem you’d bump up against is that what ever policy is implemented to overcome humanities technological impotence will be far to expensive to distribute on a global scale.

    If Climate Change Activists have one weakness it is there intolerance for politics, bureaucracy and kissing ass. Political manoeuvring is pointless and self serving and ultimately causes more harm than it does good and that’s not what Climate Activists are all about. But it’s something that most elites have to go through in order to get to a position of power. Luckily for our Climate Activists they have a very special sponsor in the form of our new xeno scum overlords so our Activists can rise above the nonsense whilst still being themselves. Greta Thunberg is a very independent individual, she doesn’t accept mainstream media dogma or even the kind of equipment she uses. She doesn’t care what other people think. Greta will simply make her own changes to the plan and carry on monitoring the situation from her vantage point.

    And while we’re at it the 21st century model of a modern major city looks like a roided up tranny in drag. While the 20th century city was built mainly on Coal fired and hydro electric power plants, and oil, the 21st century city must be built on renewables and nuclear for those with water shortages so they can consume less resources than can be replenished by Mother Nature. The main problem of course is this would be to expensive to outfit across every city on the globe. But politicians understand that cities are cheap breeding grounds for easy votes so no one has to address the crimes against humanity committed by the 1%. Cities function very well in the 20th century but it just isn’t very good at consuming resources efficiently. The 21st century city would be one example of Climate Activists not settling for the tools available to them and should come up with new gadgets or devices of there own. For climate activists procedure comes secound, after function.

    As mentioned 21st century cities are expensive and Climate Activists aren’t very good at politics which means they’re terrible at gaining funding. At the moment huge amounts of resources are being directed to every nations military otherwise known as the patriarchy. Although the patriarchy is meant to be for us the huge amount of blacks and woman it in-salves (sarc) means it’s relatively easy to figure out what’s going on. Climate activists disapproves of the patriarchy and they should make politicians promise that the military won’t be turned on their own people (the National Party is like…, sure, okay, what ever you say) because Climate Activists are nothing but rational they think the military is a wast of resources and time. Activists despises vanity and ego driven projects which the military obviously is. Climate activists thinks those resources would be better employed by advancing the national motor pool or creating a series of 21st century cities plus 20th century cities destroy to much resources making it a prime target for the xeno scum. Unfortunately for activists, politicians don’t listen to anyone.

    Some times leaders don’t have anytime for anyone but activists are different. Activists even if misguided is motivated by making the people around them better. From a rational point of view why wouldn’t a leader try and make the people around them better and much more adequate at doing there job especially when we have to go into battle together against the xeno scum. If you are humble enough to listen to Greta Thunberg she may very well bring you towards your full potential. And if there is time before battle it’s good practise to walk people through your thought process so they would better understand how Greta thought. Some times it’s also good to quiz people and ask what they would do in certain situations. Greta trains activists to become extensions of herself. That way during battle she can look at the over all strategy with out worrying about all the activists. Activists are also open to new ideas and are open to discussion when the situation allows it. Activists also show that they aren’t above learning from the people below as well. Activists don’t have time to develop an ego and must always be learning from everything around them. It is these traits that would make Climate Activists an excellent counter punch to the xeno scum.

    It seems strange to punish all of humanity for the crimes against humanity, overconsumption and pollution of the 1%. Humanity is used to seeing low wage beneficiaries severely punished for the smallest infractions even if it wasn’t justified. Climate Activists are extremely rational and fair, they understand that failure some times isn’t the fault of the people as long as they tried there best, we shouldn’t really be all that angry. How ever activists do not tolerate fools, bully’s or arrogant egos with in there ranks.

    A paradox is that military leaders are cold and distant and Greta is very emotional. The defences of the xeno scum need to be probed by small tactical attacks using vehicles no larger than 30 tons yet at the same time humanity needs to know that climate activists wouldn’t needlessly throw away lives. In away climate activists is more like a government but more goal ordinated and less focused on kidnapping newborn brown babies.

    Unlike most leaders the most excellent leaders like Supreme Allied Commander of European Forces, Dwight D Eisenhower did not climb the ranks by leaving a wake of destruction behind him. Even when bullied activists can not retaliate and even when confronted by stupider opposition, activists can not seek to embarrass them instead activists have to WANT to help people figure out the solutions for themselves. Eisenhower’s political and analytical abilities could utterly destroy anyone if he wanted to but despite all that Eisenhower was never really interested in vengeance. Eisenhower was way to focused on being the best individual and it was these character traits that won him a World War.

    With a mind like Erwin Rommels, the Commander of Germanys Africa Korps during World War 2 you’d think that he wouldn’t have to place himself in harms way. But he was always leading from the front because he trusted everyone under him to execute his orders and there ability to command themselves.

    Climate Activists allegiance to capitalism is always in question because of there activists background. Some doubt that Activists can be completely loyal to both factions but the xeno scum continue to hold a belief that activists could hold those beliefs simultaneously. Activists must master many different character traits in order to focus on intercepting and redirecting attacks while being unimpressed by the limited character traits taught to today’s leaders. Activists understand that the capitalist system could one day destroy humanity but I claim that that should make them want to join the system and prevent that from happening. Activists don’t see things as a zero sum game they see power in cooperation and mutual gain. While Activists don’t completely agree with the capitalist system it is a stabilising force among humanity.

    On the other hand military leaders are not very ideologically driven, they look at things in very unbiased ways. Despite Climate Activists so called moral high ground military leaders should view them more of a threat to the stability of humanity because activists want to take down the system and they also don’t have a plan to replace the system once it’s taken down. Combat is extremely unpredictable and military leaders make sure their squad had every advantage possible. The military are well trained and independent enough to carry out missions with out bureaucratic oversight. The ability to know an enemies weakness means your squad knows the best places to strike and it your squad isn’t equipped for the job you have to create the correct tools for the job. So if it was a German Officer in WW2 who was forced by the xeno scum to solve their own crimes against humanity then he too, like the Climate Activists today would have to become the best Nazi Officer of the day.

  10. May the Force be with you.

    Latest since 1995 (year of the first UN climate change conference) very substantial social, economic, cultural recommendations are accumulated; there is practically no field of science and technology without innovative alternatives to the development path that has led to the present global climate catastrophe.

    Certainly, some of these suggestions and ideas will turn out to be impractical. Learning by doing is part of the adaptation skill.

    Over the past 20 years, in AONZ alone, there must be thousands having worked, educated and trained on specific professional aspects relevant for climate adaptation and mitigation. There is no sector that does not have basic expertise on key features for climate resilience.

    The core problem is that such expertise does hardly affect the official political format……. the real estate agent around the corner is probably more aware of critical environmental problems than many members of the political class.

    On the governance side, key for trying to respond to the challenge is to organize the existing potentials, across the country, in a most beneficial structure and to enable direct influence on governing parameters and decision-making.

    The usual organogram of government institutions is not much suitable for such undertaking as it does not sufficiently foster the required analyses of interrelations, complex responses and system integration.

    Again, on the governance side, an important step would be creation of a powerful institutional mechanism that qualifies and integrates meaningful information from science for parliament.

    As an immediate step forward the narrow concept and mandate of the NZ Climate Commission has to be reviewed and revised, and based upon a much broader and much more diversified understanding of climate implications.

    System Change. Now.

    May the Force be with us. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSJNeXrCbE4

  11. It’s too much. And even if govt turned it’s full torchlight on it — which would be good enough for me but seems politically impossible — you’re right, we could go massively wrong.

    Just know it’s the time for socialism. In a time of the utmost atomisation.

    What would I do, you ask? Two aspects, NZ and, more importantly, the world.

    Has a democratic politician ever won arguing for a bitter pill? In this case the bitterest. We vote out rather than in. Rome took 3 wars to beat their major adversaries. We react to reality. And act for our personal profit. This structure, like the designoid supreme species before us, implies cliffs.

    So it’s still good enough for me if we just address it-all.

    • That would, IMO require a carbon price so people can borrow against it, controlled by the reserve bank much like floating the kiwi dollar.

Comments are closed.