Climate Crisis or Climate Hoax? National Party Climate Change MP + Magic Talk Host vs Leader of TOP & School Strike 4 Climate coordinator

1. So, no scientists on the panel.
   Presumably it’s not a matter of science.

2. Possibly there is no need for a scientist to be present.
   The scientific consensus on the basic cause/s of the current planetary warming is clear, overwhelming and unassailable.
   It is well publicised and is summarised in the IPCC reports.

   Objections to the consensus can be justifiably dismissed.

   The debate is now about what to do about the warming planet.

   • To be honest I just don’t want to go full vegan and big infrastructure projects and higher achievements make me proud to be a New Zealander.

     When David Lange took over as Prime Minister he had to deal with high interest rates, low borrowing and a lack of infrastructure so he had to make the government smaller. Now that interest rates are under 2% the cost of bond repayments are 2% so the government can borrow at 2% interest which is nothing compared to taxes.

     The government budget is a variable financial instrument. The idea that it has to produce a surplus as if it was a family budget is insane. Small government mentality at 2% interest while there is huge infrastructure deficits and human suffering is just petty. What ever Sir Micheal Cullen did that infected everyone with the surplus virus dosnt not work when interest rates have fallen from 20% to under 2%.

     The government has to get bigger by borrowing for infrastructure. The ports of Auckland have to move and it has to leverage a package of road, rail and air transport solutions that go all over. Farmers need the finically sector and business to come around the whole structure of infrastructure investment pushed around by government borrowing.

     What kills infrastructure is that every wannabe politician from MPs to local representitives are always competing for scarce resources. We need a great big frame work of infrastructure that covers the whole nation instead of a bridge here, a railway there. There has to be a sustainable plan and The National Party has to agree to it.

     The number one thing that has to be adressed and I know a lot of people around here would say climate change but we are trading way to much with China. We have to have a trade deal with the US and that needs to be offset with trade with the Pacific Forums so we don’t have to side with the lesser arsehole.

     • Auckland is where it is because of the port just like nearly every other major city in the world. If you shift the port because the city now finds it beneath their dignity to have to live with it, then eventually a city will grow up around the new port. Because it’s vital to commerce and all the activities that sustain us all. Both those that work of making and selling the things that everyone eats or uses, and those that distain such vulgar activity and such vulgar folk.
       The port is the heart of the city. It should stay where it is.
       D J S

       • How would the Ports of Auckland expand when there is no political will to allow the down town wharfs to expand out into the harbour?

   • That level of certainty is not available Richard. And making such a categorical statement doesn’t inspire confidence; It looks like it stands instead of reasoned argument where reasoned argument may fail.
     It may well be though, that the debate should be about what to do about a warming planet because there is better evidence that at the moment anyway the planet does seem to be warming. But it may be that if it continues to do so to a damaging degree we need to try to adapt as it’s likely to be out of our control and nothing to do with CO2 emissions.
     D J S

Comments are closed.