Climate change day of action
39 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
So a bit late than never.
I went along to the Wellington Climate Change Festival (or at least part of it) at the Paramount, mainly to listen to what the National BlueGreen position sounded like coming from Nick Smith. Quick summary:
Marian Hobbs- Blah blah blah ... lots of nice words, trying to hype 7 years of complete Labour inaction. I'm sure the spin machine hit about 100,000 rpm trying to make very minor bits of policy sound like major steps on climate change.
Nick Smith - Surprisingly good, and received largely with tolerance and interest. Big round of applause when he said there needed to be a cross-party consensus on climate policy. The big question is how this will translate into the National agenda.
Russel Norman - Warmly received, but then he was playing to the home crowd. Made the point that supporting the Green private members bills would be a good first step for the Nats and Labour if they were serious about climate change.So sensible words all round. The big problem with the day was the utter lack of the farmers - despite much apparent effort to get someone from Federated Farmers to speak, the generators of 49.4% of NZ's GHGs were notable only by their absence.
This seems like complete stupidity to me. If the farming lobby can't front to a gathering like this - which is simply a talk-fest, after all - then they deserve a right royal shafting in legislation. It costs nothing to talk, and to try and convince a group of people that are genuinely interested in the subject that you have a plan on emissions. To simply not show up smacks of either arrogance or incompetence, or - alarmingly - both.
So we can conclude from the day that Labour has a plan but no action, National has a plan but maybe no internal consensus, the Greens have a plan and some private members bills, and the farmers are still in denial.
All in all, not a bad outcome.
-
Heh heh... so can someone explain to me the icebergs closer to NZ than ever before?
:)
-
Has anyone else noticed the pitch of the 'AGW isn't really happening' crowd getting that much more fevered in recent times?
As more and more of the mainstream come around to seeing future climate change as a real, tangible risk, and seeing mitigation as the correct response as opposed to adaptation, the volume of rebuttal from the fringes has increased markedly.
It seems that with both major political parties purporting to head in roughly the same direction, that some actual policy might result. Exciting!
-
andrew, if i remember the lovelock thesis correctly;
the ice caps melt into the oceans, cooling the earth slightly.
but, heating continues and the oceans gradually evaporate up into the atmosphere to form clouds. this increases the reflectiveness of the atmosphere, again the earth trying to cool things slightly.
but, the heating continues, and the water starts to boil off into space.
eventually we're sitting on a new version of mars.bit of a drama queen that prof. lovelock.
but i may be wrong. it might just be mother nature ensuring we've got enough ice for all the caipirinha we're knocking back while the earth burns.
-
Thanks Che - after asking that slightly tongue in cheek question, I realised that it would probably be a consequence of the ice cap melting & large chunks of ice being transported out to sea...
-
Any theories as to what drives the climate change deniers? Is it a deeply-considered genuine belief in their position? An over-estimation of their own intellect? Or just a perverse enjoyment of pissing into the wind?
I remember David Bellamy coming to speak at my school in 1990 or 1991, and even back then he was talking about the greenhouse effect merely holding off an overdue ice age. It seems to me that he developed his hypothesis fairly early on, and now clings to it in the face of any evidence to the contrary.
-
no worries. it could also be jeebuz "messing the climate cchange boffins".
jeebuz likes to keep it nice and light-hearted.
-
Any theories as to what drives the climate change deniers?
I think it just suits them to carry on as they are. For one reason or another.
And also, over the years there have been various popular theories espoused that have come to nought - population explosion, ice age, pupper president in the Whitehouse etc etc.
-
puppet.
-
Andrew, you were right the first time. Dubya is the best example of a pupper I've ever seen. :-)
-
Er... as in Norwegian for puppy?
-
But Llew, they're so vehement. Surely lazy bastardism can't account for it?
Fortunately Kottke published a link to this How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic guide today, so if I do ever meet one of this fabled species I shall be prepared.
-
Heh - they're vehement because it _really_ suits them to do nothing.
To do _something_ would be very inconvenient.
But cripes, have you read that article in the Listener about carbon emissions per person from various types of vehicle?
-
Hmm... I obviously haven't got italics sussed.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.