Are there any tree huggers out there?

[rainman]

Yip, you're pretty much wasting your time Rainman. For all the little insignificant effort you put into the green movement, there will always be people like me around who just don't fall for all this bullshit.

Refreshingly honest, Finn, but I don't think I'm wasting my time - at least some people out there have a shred of moral fibre.

Who says what they are doing is right? Or that they are even heading in the right decision?

...Its a piss arsed marketing ploy....

Yeah, I said up the top I wasn't commenting on the specifics of the AirNZ deal as I hadn't really looked at it, but now having done so I agree this is more a marketing ploy to keep ticket sales from negatively correlating with consumer conscience than a realistic solution.

And Priuses ain't a silver bullet, nor are biofuels etc. But my question stands, what is?

Either you embrace denial, or you should do something about it. I can't delude myself any more that human activities are having a unsustainable negative impact on the environment, and I have to be able to look my kids in the eye and tell them I'm doing the right thing for their future.

Besides - big cars, big bikes and big trucks are cool.

Most cars and trucks don't really float my boat, but I agree about the bikes. But as the song goes, you can't always get what you want...

Global warming - hell it gives me more warm sunny days in which to enjoy the bike - so its gotta be good to right?

Is that really your honest assessment of the risk, or just an excuse not to think about it? I recognise we can't be certain about the future impact, but that's risk management, right - you should have a plan B.

It's like heading into a corner at speed: if you don't push it too far up front and you keep watching for risks (gravel, diesel) you can take corrective action and get through the other side, albeit with some uncomfortable moments in the middle... or you could end up dead or damaged.

[Finn]

Refreshingly honest, Finn, but I don't think I'm wasting my time - at least some people out there have a shred of moral fibre.

Typical lefty. If people don't fall for their bullshit, they're accused of lacking moral fibre. Go sell your social conscience somewhere else fool.

[Pwalo]

Either you embrace denial, or you should do something about it. I can't delude myself any more that human activities are having a unsustainable negative impact on the environment, and I have to be able to look my kids in the eye and tell them I'm doing the right thing for their future.

What do you mean by an unsustainable impact on the enviroment? And does that mean that human activity is, of itself, bad? Doesn't this logically mean that we should be curtailing such activity? (Bit of a bummer if you're a human).

And do you want to deny your children the oportunities that you have enjoyed to date by proscribing what they can or can't do? What happens to them if you get it wrong?

Look I'm all in favour of using resources wisely, and looking for better (or alternate) ways of doing things, but I can't see that rushing headlong in any one direction is going to solve a problem that may not exist.

[rainman]

Typical lefty. If people don't fall for their bullshit, they're accused of lacking moral fibre. Go sell your social conscience somewhere else fool.

Hey I'd be quite happy to debate your position with you, but I haven't seen anything from you so far except base denial, and simplistic labelling. And don't you have a social conscience? If so, doesn't that make you a sociopath?

You could of course actually address some of the points in the debate above?

[Finn]

Hey I'd be quite happy to debate your position with you, but I haven't seen anything from you so far except base denial, and simplistic labelling. And don't you have a social conscience? If so, doesn't that make you a sociopath?

You could of course actually address some of the points in the debate above?

I used to have a social conscience but some prick stole it from my garage while he was on parole. I had it replaced under insurance but then your Government taxed it away from me.

There's nothing wrong with the environment. We're just over populated because of people like yourself with an over inflated social conscience. Just take a look at Africa. $1 a day - talk about ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. They should be handing out condoms, not fucking food.

[MisterD]

nor are biofuels etc.

I've just heard the refreshingly straight-talking Nick Smith on the radio about this...the biofuel bill that Heilen and co are trying to hammer through into law.

Get this - to ease their lefty consciences, and give themselves something to green-soundbite about at the election, they want to get this into law asap. The thing is, there will be no standards in place to measure the sustainability of the bio portion of the fuel, which means in all likelyhood Kiwis will be paying more to import Brazillian ethanol made from sugarcane grown in clear-felled former Amazon rainforest...yay, we're leading the world in hypocrisy and wooly thinking again.

[rainman]

What do you mean by an unsustainable impact on the enviroment? And does that mean that human activity is, of itself, bad? Doesn't this logically mean that we should be curtailing such activity? (Bit of a bummer if you're a human).

And do you want to deny your children the oportunities that you have enjoyed to date by proscribing what they can or can't do? What happens to them if you get it wrong?

Look I'm all in favour of using resources wisely, and looking for better (or alternate) ways of doing things, but I can't see that rushing headlong in any one direction is going to solve a problem that may not exist.

Wiki is your friend: "Sustainability is a characteristic of a process or state that can be maintained at a certain level indefinitely." (Yes, indefinitely is a high standard). The likelihood of us being able to continue to increase our CO2 and other GHG outputs indefinitely is, well, effectively zero. Ergo, it's not sustainable. But it's not an on/off switch - yes, all human (and animal) activity has an impact on the earth, but back in the day when there were fewer of us and we behaved differently ecosystems could recover and absorb the impact. Technology can help get more benefit for less impact, but many technologies go the other way. Like ICEs, unfortunately.

I'd like my kids to have a better life than mine. But one that has a more manageable environmental impact - smarter tech, not necessarily less of it. That's a big change and a big ask, though, given attitudes today. If I get it wrong, they lose, same is true for any course of action. This is the nature of time, and has always been so. We have large brains and so can try to predict the future based on sound reasoning and rational discovery (a.k.a. science). We don't always get it right, but I think it is incumbent on us to try. In fact, I think this is a sounder base for morality than any other.

Doing nothing is a choice. What if you get it wrong?

[Tank]

And Priuses ain't a silver bullet, nor are biofuels etc. But my question stands, what is?

I dont know. And whilst the US and China and the like dont give a fuck - nothing I or my family do will make a blind bit of difference.

Either you embrace denial, or you should do something about it. I can't delude myself any more that human activities are having a unsustainable negative impact on the environment, and I have to be able to look my kids in the eye and tell them I'm doing the right thing for their future.

I assume that you dont buy the same kids any presents etc that are made in China etc then? You can plant a tree for a kid, or sponsor a goat for some Afrians to eat - but at the end of the day the kids dont give a shit either - they want the playstation.

Most cars and trucks don't really float my boat, but I agree about the bikes. But as the song goes, you can't always get what you want...

But I CAN get what I want. And if I want a huge fuck off truck - who has the right to tell me that its wrong? And BTW - I have been talking to my wife about getting one.

Is that really your honest assessment of the risk, or just an excuse not to think about it? I recognise we can't be certain about the future impact, but that's risk management, right - you should have a plan B.

I do have a 'plan B' - When I brought my house - I got one on top of the hill -so when the water rises Im gonna be OK.

It's like heading into a corner at speed: if you don't push it too far up front and you keep watching for risks (gravel, diesel) you can take corrective action and get through the other side,

Sad but true - We might get thru, so will our kids and grandkids - but at some point a generation wont. The worlds too far gone, and its only getting worse faster and faster.

[Mikkel]

I'm pretty ambivalent when it comes down to the environmental issue...

1. How much of it is caused by industrialisation?
2. Is it too late to avoid catastrophe?
3. What's gonna happen when shit hits the fan?
4. Is sustainability even realistic for a human population of 6 billion on this planet?

Those are questions that are unable to be answered. Call me cynic if I don't believe that anything significant is going to change before we run out of petrol.

As for the world of tomorrow - I don't know... I just hope we don't run out of petrol before my time is up.

That said - it would be nice if people were better at reducing wasteful behaviour. E.g. NZ needs to understand that being a pacific island doesn't mean that insulating houses is a waste of time and money...

[rainman]

There's nothing wrong with the environment. We're just over populated...

Huh? Either we're all hunky dory or we're over-populated? Pick one.

...because of people like yourself with an over inflated social conscience. Just take a look at Africa. $1 a day - talk about ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. They should be handing out condoms, not fucking food.

I fail to see how my "over inflated social conscience" could cause overpopulation. And are you really saying the world is in a mess because there are too many brown people? Ewww.

Overpopulation is a big problem, but per capita impact is too. A given ecosystem can sustainably support a large number of people poorly, or a small number well. Imagine you and your tribe lived on an island and survived by eating the native pigs and local flora. You and yours are the predators, the pigs are prey. If you eat pork all day long, quicker than the little fuckers can reproduce, the pig population will collapse. If you keep going, pork for breakfast, lunch and dinner, they'll go locally extinct and you'll be up shit creek. If you eat a modest amount of pork and your tribe reproduces too rapidly, sooner or later the same outcome results. Total impact = average individual impact * number of individuals. Kindergarten maths.

The thing is, there will be no standards in place to measure the sustainability of the bio portion of the fuel, which means in all likelyhood Kiwis will be paying more to import Brazillian ethanol made from sugarcane grown in clear-felled former Amazon rainforest...yay, we're leading the world in hypocrisy and wooly thinking again.

Agree, biofuels are a convenient political football, and by no means a silver bullet.

[MisterD]

That said - it would be nice if people were better at reducing wasteful behaviour. E.g. NZ needs to understand that being a pacific island doesn't mean that insulating houses is a waste of time and money...

Now that would be a better use of gummint money - interest free loans or grants for people to better insulate their houses or install solar water heating, but no, that doesn't have all the lovely extra regulations to create that a useless carbon trading scheme does...

[Finn]

Watch this series knuckle head. Here's the first one...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUuff3cnPBo

[Finn]

I fail to see how my "over inflated social conscience" could cause overpopulation. And are you really saying the world is in a mess because there are too many brown people? Ewww.

Again, typical lefty trying to turn my comments into racism. You're so transparent. I'm saying that the wrong type of people are breeding. If you live in the middle of Africa, don't have any food, water or shelter and you say to your wife, "Hey honey, lets have 12 kids" then effectively that's child abuse.

Just like here in NZ where your Government is offering money for kids. The lower socio economic people are breeding like rabbits placing a HUGE burden on core services.

Socialism always bites you on the arse.

[devnull]

What a shame that people are so naive that they buy into the global warming bullshit.

There's a big difference between supporting the idea of reducing pollution (a good idea), and supporting a political myth (global warming).

IPCC members have resigned in protest because of this politicisation of a flawed scientific theory. Common sense will tell you that if they can't predict what the weather will be next week, what hope does a computer model have of predicting years ahead?

Now that we're coming to the end of this sunspot cycle, and temperatures are falling, the new term is "climate change" instead of "global warming".

In the '70s, we were told we were entering an ice age....

Anyone find it odd that the Mars polar ice caps melted at the same rate as ours during this sunspot cycle? Was that due to secret manmade bases polluting the non-existant Martian atmosphere? Or is there a possibility that it was due to the cyclic activities if the sun?

I know what my money's on....

BTW, for those that really believe in the global warming stuff - who wants to buy a nice little bridge in Auck - has great harbour views

[Pwalo]

Hey I'd be quite happy to debate your position with you, but I haven't seen anything from you so far except base denial, and simplistic labelling. And don't you have a social conscience? If so, doesn't that make you a sociopath?

You could of course actually address some of the points in the debate above?

I'm a bit confused. What debate are you talking about. You have basically said that anyone who does not agree with your view point is a 'denier'.

No one is denying that the climate changes. It has done so since the earth has existed. I'd merely like to understand what it is you think that we are denying, and what sort of evidence you are basing your position (ie that humans are responsible for climate change) on.