Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

21 Comments

  1. The Climate Change Commission report has just two purposes:

    1. to lie to the scientifically illiterate and scientifically uninformed (i.e. 99% of the population) in order to keep the consumer society running as long as possible as a component of the Ponzi economic system.

    2. to meet arbitrary targets that will achieve nothing in terms of preventing ultra-rapid Planetary Meltdown.

    As ‘The Climate Change Commission is an independent Crown entity that was established in December 2019.’

    https://ccc-production-media.s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/public/evidence/advice-report-DRAFT-1ST-FEB/ADVICE/CCC-ADVICE-TO-GOVT-31-JAN-2021-pdf.pdf

    it naturally follows that its advice:

    1. is totally biased towards business as usual
    2. has the wrong values for forcing factors
    3. is unreliable insofar as it ignores crucial factors such as positive feedbacks and the collapse of the global oil sector (leading to collapse of current economic arrangements) over the next decade or so.

    This says it all:

    ‘Dr Rod Carr, Chairperson

    Dr Carr has extensive experience in both public and private sector governance and leadership. He served as Chair and non-executive director of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand and served as Deputy Governor and for a time Acting Governor of the Bank. Dr Carr was the founding Chair of the National Infrastructure Advisory Board and for over a decade was a non-executive director of the Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce. He led the University of Canterbury as Vice Chancellor for ten years, and holds a PhD in Insurance and Risk Management, an MA in Applied Economics and Managerial Science, an MBA in Money and Finance and honours degrees in law and economics.’

    So we have a lawyer-come-economist heading up the most important commission ever. And we all know what lawyers and economists are like. Unreliable fuckwits who have acquired a stranglehold on society, most of them.

    ‘Professor Shadbolt is a farmer, forester, director and academic. As the recently appointed Chairperson of Plant and Food Research and former Director of Fonterra Cooperative Group and Transit New Zealand, Professor Shadbolt has a strong understanding of implementing sustainability in businesses and a keen appreciation of how environmental management fits alongside social and economic imperatives.’

    I do have time for James Renwick, of course.

    But, as always, it’s the economists and ‘sustainability in businesses’ and ‘economic imperatives’ that rule the roost. And we all know what a shocking mess economists have made of everything!

    Despite the declaration:

    ‘We are seeking feedback on our draft advice before it is finalised. There are matters of fact,
    assumptions and value judgments we invite you to review. We are committed to true consultation.
    We will consider all evidence we receive through consultation and are prepared to change any part of our work in light of this.’

    It’s all a rigged game and public submissions will be ignored, as is standard practice for all government so-called consultation. I’m sure they will do what THEY want to do and ignore the scientific reality of our predicament.

    The coming MONTHS are going to be particularly interesting, with Arctic sea ice at a record low and on track for a record low in September, with the American economy in free-fall, and with most of the rest of the world to varying degrees a shambles, with the ‘peasants’ revolting all over the place.

  2. Yes these measures are weak and timid. But let’s admit it, they wont hit these targets either.

    1. And in the mean time, the housing and rent crisis gets worse. Let’s have some real vision and action where it’s needed rather than virtue signalling and attention seeking.

      1. Correct. It astounds me how many are just content with Ardern getting on top of Covid-19. They dont care about true progressive policies as long as this is achieved. The strongest mandate we have had in decades and we will piss it away on no meaningful change or transformation. What a waste.

  3. As I write the chair of the Climate Change commission is being interviewed on RNZ National: “We need to stop doing what we are doing and transition over time to more sustainable practices”.

    On the face of it a sound imperative. What then, to a good many, makes this imperative sound hollow? Is the use of the pronoun “we” by those with power implying everyone is to blame? After all, “they” fucked it up, right, by intensifying the exploitation of natural resources, expanding industrial capitalism and sucking everyone into the ideology of commodity fetishism. But let’s face it: whether we like it or not most if not all of us are all complicit in the mess we find ourselves in. We are part of the problem. A good many people may lie outside the problem , like when your daily income is around $1 a day what kind of environmental footprint can you leave? But for the prosperous there is no escaping the complicity.

    If changing what are currently doing won’t cut the mustard what will? Is it that “ what we are doing” simply isn’t fully acknowledged –and the changes needed require a paradigm shift, not so called smart thinking that promises to mitigate the consequences of our economic practices? The tyranny of reason is that humans are now faced with digging themselves out of a hole. The hole of course is the existential threat that climate change poses. The absurdity is that digging deeper will never work.

  4. You’re right in your sentiments on this olive branch report Martyn.
    It’s just more woke virtue signalling from Jacinda and Co. and is not much more than tinkering with business as usual.
    I agree that we may well be past the point of no return in terms of dealing with this climate change crisis, due to the ignorance, arrogance, inaction and deregulation that has come with successive governments, neoliberalism and corporate capitalist societies.

  5. Where does TPP, and council/ government narrative of continuous growth fit into this insanity? Interesting times.

    1. Q. Where does TPP, and council/ government narrative of continuous growth fit into this insanity?

      A. Killing the planet faster…. and allowing those who made money killing their own countries to buy up land and residency in others and therefore not be accountable for the state of their own countries and communities.

  6. I think is shows how deeply undemocratic the current crop of politicians’ are, and have been for some time.

    The continued lack of any movement on this issue has only one result, collapse and the rise of totalitarian states to attempt to deal with the business of survival. NZ will be a eco-fascist state by 2030.

    It would have been nice to live my twilight years knowing my mokopuna would have a future – but that is fast becoming a false hope. One made worse by US led Christian fundamentalism, hell bent on creating the end of the world.

  7. With a low bar it’s now a tough call to activate anyone – like your local council. They’ll just say they’re working to the 2050 targets. It just got harder.

  8. “*Sustainable immigration and an end to exploitative migrant workers.
    Resettlement Programms for all pacific island neighbours.
    Increase refugee in take to 10 000 per year”
    “*NZ will be one of the few lifeboats left and we need to start accepting that as global warming gets worse and worse”.
    These two sets of objectives are mutually exclusive. What are we to be? A nation that will have to be willing to fight to keep millions of refugees at bay? or a nation that is foolish enough to open arms to all the millions of refugees and immigrants who covet our land. If you dont know what the out come of all this is, ask a few maoris.

  9. “*Sustainable immigration and an end to exploitative migrant workers.
    Resettlement Programms for all pacific island neighbours.
    Increase refugee in take to 10 000 per year”
    “*NZ will be one of the few lifeboats left and we need to start accepting that as global warming gets worse and worse”.
    These two sets of objectives are mutually exclusive. What are we to be? A nation that will have to be willing to fight to keep millions of refugees at bay? or a nation that is foolish enough to open arms to all the millions of refugees and immigrants who covet our land. If you dont know what the out come of all this is, ask a few maoris.

    1. yep, agree. this list is more of a whip-around of kneejerks to satisfy the left/pc brigade than a true platform for isolationism. inclusion of it degrades the thrust of the text. could do MUCH better. Martyn note.

  10. A lot of doomer talk here.

    You’re all assuming that the electorate will allow an amped up climate change programme on steroids. The reality is if we can’t get the boomers to sort housing out then there is no way we will land a radical climate change agenda especially with the Australians maintaining their head in the sand approach. Better to boil the frog over time to create and embed sustainable change and speed this transition up as the electorate starts to respond to the earlier nudges.

    The lefts job is to holla and scream to push the political response to faster and more equitable outcomes. So keep it up 😉

Comments are closed.