Posts by Angus Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to BenWilson,
Tax new cars, tax 2nd hand imports, tax new buses, tax diesel, tax petrol, tax spare parts. End subsidies on public transport. Make the commute expensive.
Urban sprawl and a long commute are big problems, commuting is anathema to the climate. Ideally people would live close to their work. In a centralised city, that means living in an apartment. In a decentralised city/cities it means multiple spread out centres of employment.
Even better, work from home and have a virtual commute.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to mccx,
I agree that the proposed Kyoto cap levels are unfair to the developing world and that they were promoted by the developed world on the basis of domestic political feasibility. What's the developing world's solution though?
Bigger per capita cap for them and a smaller cap for us.
I thought it was uncontroversial that a cap was needed, but that the terms of the debate were about whose cap is at what level.
Caps are useful political animals, they allow every country (or groups of) to point and say that climate change is going to happen because of that lot failing to act. Caps meet with universal political approval.
I have a hard time imagining how continuing growth of emissions from the developing world and significant climatic change, even if it came with technology transfer and development aid, would turn out to be a good deal for the developing world.
So do I, but I also think that we are never going to be able to agree on a cap. So what does it leave us with?
My 2c answer - tax the consumer.
-
The EU and Australian emissions policies may not be good, but worse than nothing? I'm skeptical about that.
In isolation they are way worse than doing nothing. And if the developing world is never going to get on board with emission caps it will always be in isolation.
Take the Prius example, emission caps are all about energy efficiency which the Prius does really well. New equipment with cutting edge technology is so favoured that existing functional plant is scrapped. This is inherently wasteful.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to mccx,
Emission caps are the favoured tool of the rich world, mostly post-industrial we exhibit the traits of the McMansion set, but on a global scale. Our ideal solution to climate change is have a global emission cap. We call it fair, because it is much more than fair to us. It is not fair.
Kyoto was the prototype and Kyoto2 was the point where us rich worlders attempted to force emission caps on the world. It failed, because the industrial and pre-industrial developing world is not stupid.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Bullshit, Kyoto is the biggest pile of excremental pandering to the McMansion set ever.
How so, you ask:
Want to take a trip to Fiji - don't worry thats not covered, because it is air travel.
Want to remodel your home every year - don't worry thats not covered, if the materials are made overseas.
Want a newer more fuel efficient car - don't worry thats not covered, cars are all made overseas. PS. - buy a Prius.Kyoto makes the Greens popular in Ponsonby, because it tells the McMansion set they can save the planet by doing nothing. Message over substance politics. If you say that climate change is the fault of the Chinese, the Indians, poor people or in NZ dirty, dirty farmers - you can get lots of votes.
My 2c solution to climate change is a carbon tax on consumerism - on imports, fuel consumption and transport costs. Exempting exports.
-
Oooh a climate change debate...
I am glad we are getting out of Kyoto, because it is terrible for the planet.
Emmission caps are terrible. Whilst some countries have succeeded in reducing emissions, they have all increased their carbon footprint by a greater amount.
The net result of all the Emission Trading Schemes constructed under Kyoto is to make the situation much worse.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Sacha,
I will charitably presume you have not been paying attention. ETS changes alone have already skewed environmental impacts over the last few years.
Labour ennacted the ETS in late 2008 for phased implementation, but then lost office before any implementation took place.
-
Hard News: Fact and fantasy, in reply to Sacha,
People do respond to announced intent, not just implementation - even lawyers.
Announced intent seems the only notable difference between the previous and current governments, implementation being quite indistinguishable.
-
Hard News: Crossing the line into idle bigotry, in reply to Russell Brown,
Now explain to me again why the editor of the Waikato Times wouldn't know this.
Because it probably doesn't come up much in general conversation. Because when Islamic countries make the news it is mostly for arresting couples for kissing, commuting the death sentences of women convicted of witchcraft, stopping women from driving, blasphemy laws, Palestine and terrorism.
When the right wing fuddy duddy, with whom the editor probably shares little political common ground, comes up with a crackpot theory* as to why in an opinion piece - the editor can disgree on tone at most. But it is topical and of interest to the weird types who follow this guy.
* His crackpot theory is more popular than my crackpot theory. His is more appealing to zealots. My crackpot theory is more depressingly realistic and no one really wants to be depressed.
-
Hard News: Crossing the line into idle bigotry, in reply to Russell Brown,
The contention was that Muslims by their very nature are dangerous and will destroy our societies from within if they are allowed to breed.
Do you believe the latter is true?
Islam is a religion so it can be changed. The salafists are trying to change Islam and they have lots of money right now. However the task is immense and salafism is such a very difficult way to live. The costs of changing Islam and maintaining some semblence of functional society under that change will be too costly, can't be done for all the oil in Arabia.
So my answer is: No. It is a BS line taken by zealots of all types (christian/atheist/hindi/salafist/zoinist varieties included). Islam as is poses no greater threat that Catholicism.
They will not destroy our societies, but they'll be damage. A vanishingly small amount of damage will occur in the wealthy countries - which we will howl & moan about endlessly, we'll invade & occupy a few more failed states before this is over. A much greater degree of damage will occur in poor Muslim countries - which we'll mostly be able to safely ignore and anyway will officially catergorise as regional specific.
It will go on until:
- Salafism collapses under its own weight - possible.
- The princes undertake reform - unlikely, tigers & tails & all that.
- The oil runs out - 2070 or later.
- The Chinese invent Mr Fusion - ?
- America stops protecting the princes - 2070 or later.