Iceberg? What iceberg? (12 Oct, 2018)

Have your say on today's Aardvark Daily column

Iceberg? What iceberg? (12 Oct, 2018)

Postby aardvark_admin » Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:09 am

This column is archived at: https://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2018/1012.shtml

Just like the Titanic, New Zealand is headed for an unfortunate collision with an iceberge, the only difference is that *we* can see this one coming but still refuse to change course.

Why do you think it is that we seem to have this crazy belief that we can continue to assault the environment through our massive levels of primary production without any future consequence?

Will changing to GM grass have a huge negative impact on the desirability of our foods on the global marketplace?

And with the concept of free trade being swept under the carpet by the USA of late, are we approaching a perfect storm of factors that could see our food exports plunge to such an extent that our economy starts to collapse?

Is the current "head in the sand" approach a foolish one?

Should we be working *very* hard to seek out new industries and markets that will support our economy without wrecking our environment?

How long do we have -- or is it alrady too late for such a transition?
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3243
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: Iceberg? What iceberg? (12 Oct, 2018)

Postby phill » Fri Oct 12, 2018 9:21 am

so many angles and problems to this
my first is .. how come every product that is created has its carbon tax added by the manufacturer except oil and coal
its a global problem so how did we allow big corruption to sneak out of their ( major ) contributions to the problem

its actually the worst generation to try to tackle the problems .. actively ... this is the generation that must be seen to agree to whatever the shock of the day is and demanding change for all .. but doing nothing themselves .. they only have to look like they give a shit .. doing something is an entirely different social experience

they also cannot be seen having a controversial viewpoint or promoting one .. so birthrate aka freedom to breed is a no go area

the whole basis of the consumer society has to change not just diet
to note just a few .. fashion .. planned / inbuilt redundancy .. super sizing ( cars, houses, wardrobes and meals ) 10 day holiday visits by air, encouraged population growth

most have known these for ~20 years ~40 odd for some
yet what progress has been made
....... yehh the zip zilch nada thing

who dares think apathy wont be the winner
although to be sure it is changing to guilt as even the thickest now cant avoid knowing about it
most people still wont actually change

so to me
the question of whether its ... to early / early enough / time now / past time / well past time
is moot
until acting has a chance of overtaking talking
( ,,,,,,,, ....... A E I O U use em sparingly theres probably not enough )
User avatar
phill
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: Iceberg? What iceberg? (12 Oct, 2018)

Postby phord » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:04 am

Most of NZ's problems stem from the introduction of the Resource Management Act in the 90s.
It has got to the point that it is now human survival verses environmental concerns.
NZ is determined to appear to be one of the first countries to become carbon neutral.
What does this really mean?
More and more human lives in NZ WILL be lost due to the ever increasing costs of living in NZ.
This is all due to some bullshit greeny ideal.
Think about that the next time you hear politicians rambling on about preserving the environment.
phord
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 2:05 pm

Re: Iceberg? What iceberg? (12 Oct, 2018)

Postby par_annoyed » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:42 am

Despite the fact that I am a strong climate change skeptic, I think there is a lot of bad stuff we need to worry about.

For me, the issue of pollution is of primary/high importance, and that includes fertiliser and agricultural runoff. They are a form of pollution IMHO.
So anything we can do here (within reason) we should do, and I don't care what reason gets cited.
I also think the idea of a 'carbon neutral' New Zealand is laughable. It's a GREAT tax opportunity though.....

I think NZ is dangerously dependent on just a few products, (milk powder is a good example) and those products are not unique enough that NZ can't be totally eclipsed by another country upping its output. (I read somewhere that Canada only has to raise its dairy output by 3% to produce more than NZ's entire product, and forestry by even less. I don't know if that's true, but wouldn't be surprised.)

Plus overproduction/overuse of fish, land, water, minerals, ....

And why everyone considers it normal/desirable to drive around in 1 tonne metal boxes (made FAR WORSE by the current trend to go to SUVs for f*cks sake) is beyond me.
Even the electric vehicles aren't any better - what's wrong with GRP and kevlar ??

It's not a pretty picture at all.... even though for some things (power generation) we are better than a lot of other places, we also have problems because we don't have much infrastructure outside the urban areas. E.g. NZ rail is a disaster, it would be far more efficient for mass transport of goods, but it costs a lot to build, so we don't do it. Here's to more trucks....


Note - just to be clear so I don't get hassle. My position is -
Is the climate changing ? Quite probably.
Is it warming? Probably, at the present time.
Is it cyclic ? (ice ages to warm periods and back). Possibly - there is some interesting supporting evidence, but it's speculative at present.
Is climate change caused by CO2 ? I can't accept this is proven. The evidence isn't there. Computer models just show what they are programmed to show.
Do I really believe that a change in C02 concentration from 0.025% to 0.04% of the atmosphere has that much effect ? No. I can't do it. (400 parts per million = 0.04%)

I think we've got far more important sh*t to sort out first, and it's being ignored at everyone's peril.

Oh yeah, and the fact that airports typically run out of parking space for private planes when hosting a climate change conference should tell you a lot about what the delegates REALLY care about....


(edit for typos...must learn to type...)
Last edited by par_annoyed on Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:06 am, edited 5 times in total.
par_annoyed
 
Posts: 557
Joined: Sat Oct 18, 2014 8:03 am

Re: Iceberg? What iceberg? (12 Oct, 2018)

Postby phill » Fri Oct 12, 2018 10:43 am

phord wrote:Most of NZ's problems stem from the introduction of the Resource Management Act in the 90s.
It has got to the point that it is now human survival verses environmental concerns.
.



yehh cause who needs an environment
we can survive just fine without one

ewww
ohh
wait
( ,,,,,,,, ....... A E I O U use em sparingly theres probably not enough )
User avatar
phill
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: Iceberg? What iceberg? (12 Oct, 2018)

Postby decibel » Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:52 am

It will be overseas customers of NZ that finally drive the coffin-nails in.
People like Tesco supermarkets who currently insist on knowing where all the produce originates from - will end up refusing to take our stuff unless we REALLY get our act together.
decibel
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Tue May 13, 2014 12:08 pm

Re: Iceberg? What iceberg? (12 Oct, 2018)

Postby phord » Fri Oct 12, 2018 12:50 pm

who needs an environment
we can survive just fine without one

That is why I said "Environmental Concerns" rather than environment.
The RMA does almost nothing to protect the environment.
E.G Taxing greenhouse owners for collecting rainwater from their roof.
What a croc.
phord
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon May 12, 2014 2:05 pm

Re: Iceberg? What iceberg? (12 Oct, 2018)

Postby phill » Fri Oct 12, 2018 2:23 pm

it would be
i have heard of people getting charged a flat rate for having access to council / town supplied water but not using it
but
never a charge for the amount of rain water / collected water they used
please cite example
i use rain water atm .. no other supply at present

what stuns me is it goes against a lot of what the rma was supposed to be addressing
( ,,,,,,,, ....... A E I O U use em sparingly theres probably not enough )
User avatar
phill
 
Posts: 1605
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: Iceberg? What iceberg? (12 Oct, 2018)

Postby Perry » Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:33 pm

Bruce wrote: Sadly, we seem to elect far too many politicians who have chosen that vocation only because they failed as used-car or insurance salesmen. We don't have the kind of smart, pragmatic, gifted visionaries that are required to make an effective transition to the next "age" of the planet's development, where even our very survival as a species may well be on the line.

Why on earth would people of such practicality and astute mental acuity (as you describe) get in to politics?

They can see what the rest of us see and want absolutely no part of it.

And no wonder.

Amongst the NZ voting constituency, the whiners and the bleaters and the moaners and the grabbers want it all.

Don't blame solely the moronic W'gton woodenheads.

Blame even-more-moronic voters for being so easily and readily duped by promises from wannabe public purse teat suckers and leeches.

(No tax increases - just increases in levies, excise and duties.) Suckers!

Not all the idiots get into parliament, either.

Many of them graduate into the mass media muddied mentality mob.

There is a need to write another drone BS item, almost daily.
Perry
 
Posts: 519
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 9:31 pm

Re: Iceberg? What iceberg? (12 Oct, 2018)

Postby Kiwiiano » Sun Oct 14, 2018 9:10 am

par_annoyed wrote:Despite the fact that I am a strong climate change skeptic, I think there is a lot of bad stuff we need to worry
Is it warming? Probably, at the present time.

That’s what the temperature measurements tell us.

Is it cyclic ? (ice ages to warm periods and back). Possibly - there is some interesting supporting evidence, but it's speculative at present.

Yes, we are plunging out of the current interglacial, at geological timescales. Brace yourself for the return of the glaciers in 10,000 years or so.

Is climate change caused by CO2 ? I can't accept this is proven. The evidence isn't there. Computer models just show what they are programmed to show.

Again, the evidence is from the measurements. CO2 as a heat trapping gas is high-school science and the rise in global (atmospheric and oceanic) temperatures matches the rise in CO2. The computer models are adjusted so the confirm what is already measured by other means, making them valid for extrapolating into the future. Their main problem is trying to predict what crazy changes the politicians may come up with and what the consequences of those might be.

Do I really believe that a change in C02 concentration from 0.025% to 0.04% of the atmosphere has that much effect ? No. I can't do it. (400 parts per million = 0.04%)

The major greenhouse gas is water vapour, but it drops out of the atmosphere very quickly, in days or weeks. CO2 remains as the background contributor with a turnover period in decades or more. Plus it can trap outgoing heat right through the full thickness of the atmosphere where water vapour is confined to the lower levels. The CO2 is what has prevented the Earth reverting to a permanently frozen snowball, which it should be considering our distance from the Sun and it’s heat output. The daily average temperature on the Moon, which has no atmosphere to trap heat, is -88°C. That’s what we would be but for the water vapour and other GHGs.
~ Kiwiiano
“I'm right 98% of the time, so who gives a damn about the other 3%?"
Kiwiiano
 
Posts: 403
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 5:36 pm

Next

Return to Today's column

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests