Greenpeace chain themselves to a ship

[puddytat]

Rrrrrrright....so we just sit back & wait for the millions of starving refugees to turn up by the boat load instead of trying to stop that happening,then no doubt you'll all be jumping up & down about that.
Forwarned is fore armed, & those who dont learn from history (both natural & manmade ) are doomed to repeat it.
Its the fucking biggest thing were ever going to face, & when you have the NATO bigwigs predicting that the consequences of Global Warming will make the combined effect of WW1 AND WW2 look like a skirmish, then surely we should be worried ?
I personally dont give a toss wether its us to blame for it, or wether the planet is going thru another stage,does it matter?...but unlike in the past, we are in a position to do something about it. The blame game is just splitting hairs. Its a shame that such an important issue will become a schism.

[Winston001]

I personally dont give a toss whether its us to blame for it, or whether the planet is going thru another stage, does it matter?...but unlike in the past, we are in a position to do something about it. The blame game is just splitting hairs. Its a shame that such an important issue will become a schism.

Of course most global warming discussions completely miss the point. Fundamentally its about pollution. We have been releasing complex hydrocarbons and metals into the environment at a frantic pace for 100 years now.

Industrial pollution is poisoning the thin envelope around the earth in which we live. Carbon taxing is a simplistic but effective method of reining back pollution. Unfortunately most people think its only about global warming.

[puddytat]

Of course most global warming discussions completely miss the point. Fundamentally its about pollution. We have been releasing complex hydrocarbons and metals into the environment at a frantic pace for 100 years now.

Industrial pollution is poisoning the thin envelope around the earth in which we live. Carbon taxing is a simplistic but effective method of reining back pollution. Unfortunately most people think its only about global warming.

Your onto it fella....

[davereid]

Sort of. What should happen is substitution. You install solar panels to generate your own electricity. Use low energy appliances. Bicycle or bus/train to work.

Food production in Asia, India, and China doesn't have a large carbon footprint and is cheap. The big difference is there isn't a lot of meat.

So we'd start eating like hippies - vegans. Fruit and vege with a little meat. Personally I love Indian food and when I was in India ate no meat for two weeks. Didn't miss it either which for a farmers son, was a big surprise.

Only the poor will start eating like the poor, with lentils for dinner, lentil soup for breakfast, and a skipped lunch.

The rich won't.

This is simply a recipe for a return to the bad old days, with shortages of everything for the majority.

Substitution and Alternative energies are essentially a diversion, unless there is a massive acceptance of nuclear energy, as they are all massively expensive compared to fossil fuels.

Consider the electric solar panel. A electrovolatic solar panel has a massive carbon footprint. The materials used are mined with big diesel diggers, transported to coal fired smelters in oil powered ships, and then distributed to end users, in diesel trucks, having all ready racked up a massive carbon bill.

Low energy appliances ? Yes, of course, a great idea. Once again though, high electricity prices are essential to encourage people to use them. Of course then, why would you choose an electric car ?

Bicycle - bus - train ?
The bike is a good idea. But public transport is a joke. As I have said before:

Public transport is an unreliable and expensive way of travelling slowly, from not quite where you are, to not quite where you want to be, at a time that doesnt suit, with people that you dont like.

Once, cars and fuel were so expensive that most people caught the tram. To get public transport back in favour again, fuel and cars need to be placed out of reach of the common man.

Carbon contribution of food ?
Yes, its possible to price meat, and dairy out of reach of the bottom 40% of the population, indeed that is essential if on average we have to reduce meat and dairy.

The problem for the carbon rationers is wealth.

By definition, the wealthy can afford things the poor cannot.

If electricity, meat and fuel get massively expensive, it will only affect the poor.

The rich will continue, business as usual.

There is NO PRICE that petrol could be increased to that would allow a little old lady to run an eco car, yet would price me out of my V8.

[Winston001]

Consider the electric solar panel. A electrovolatic solar panel has a massive carbon footprint. The materials used are mined with big diesel diggers, transported to coal fired smelters in oil powered ships, and then distributed to end users, in diesel trucks, having all ready racked up a massive carbon bill.

Spot on. Don't forget the carbon footprint for the heavy deep storage batteries. Many alternative energy strategies like bio-fuels are marginal at best.

Public transport is an unreliable and expensive way of travelling slowly, from not quite where you are, to not quite where you want to be, at a time that doesnt suit, with people that you dont like.

Once, cars and fuel were so expensive that most people caught the tram. To get public transport back in favour again, fuel and cars need to be placed out of reach of the common man.

And yet much of the world uses public transport. Our lifestyles would change but it wouldn't be bad - just different.

Carbon contribution of food ?
Yes, its possible to price meat, and dairy out of reach of the bottom 40% of the population, indeed that is essential if on average we have to reduce meat and dairy.

The problem for the carbon rationers is wealth.

By definition, the wealthy can afford things the poor cannot.

If electricity, meat and fuel get massively expensive, it will only affect the poor.

The rich will continue, business as usual.

Which is why we are going to see wars and probably some sort of pandemic - amongst the poor of the world.

I'm all for fusion reactors and when things get sticky, the NZ attitude will change very quickly.

[James Deuce]

And yet much of the world uses public transport. Our lifestyles would change but it wouldn't be bad - just different.

It's a retrograde step with deep ramifications. Much of NZ would be rendered uninhabitable. There's also the discussion about whether large cities are a good idea when people can't move about much.

The fundamental tenor of society would need to be much like Victorian England or Pre-Raj India - either a deeply stratified society where one knows one's place, or small fiefdoms constantly waging war on each other with a highly organised and stratified society where one knows one's place.

There's much about personal freedom that is reflected in ability to make a decision to travel 1000s of kms without asking for special permission from whatever "authorities" restrict that travel, or provide the means to undertake it.

I think the effects of of the changes that will be forced on us by real or imagined climate change will much deeper and more far reaching than anyone imagines, if we are to meet the emissions goals the fanatics are clamouring for.

For instance, if you are born in Auckland, studying at a University specialising in agriculture will mean a life lived without possibly ever seeing your family again, just like people did a mere 200 years ago.

[Winston001]

It's a retrograde step with deep ramifications. Much of NZ would be rendered uninhabitable. There's also the discussion about whether large cities are a good idea when people can't move about much......

For instance, if you are born in Auckland, studying at a University specialising in agriculture will mean a life lived without possibly ever seeing your family again, just like people did a mere 200 years ago.

That is a dark and dyspepsian view of the future Jim!! I'm much more optimistic.

The answer which is understandably overlooked is technology. We do not know what new technologies lie around the corner but we do know that the rise of technology despite war and depression has increased every year for the past century.

The speed of change today is impossible to comprehend. 20 years ago fax machine were brand-new - now many don't even use them.

Anyway I'm completely confident new discoveries will overcome the restraints limited natural resources place on us.

[EJK]

"Anchor me, anchor me in the middle of your deep blue sea..."


He's literally asking for it Should return the favor?

[rainman]

which is why i cant buy the whole human caused global warming line (although i'm certain we contribute) when they tell me the weekend is gonna be fine and it pisses down for a week...

they cant predict tornadoes in the US Midwest.. they cant predict earthquakes, volcanoes or tsunamis .. they have no idea when a mass beaching of whales is going to occur or even find out why...

To paraphrase your argument: detailed, accurate short-term predictions are unreliable (e.g. weather), therefore long-term climate is too. So, do you agree that it's reasonably accurate that most of NZ's weather comes from the west?

If we all thought like you we'd still be in the dark ages.

the earth has been doing exactly what it is doing for millions of years...cold periods followed by warming .. ice cores prove this .. they have found coal, oil and fossilized palm leaves at the south pole.. proving that the continent was once tropical

The science (and ice cores) also show that the present trend is unlike anything we've had in recent history - say the last several hundred thousand years. The issue is rate of change - the fact there have been cycles before does not address the fact that the changes we are making are unusual.

Got a credible source for the palm leaf story? The only stuff I can find is from the kookier (creationist) end of the interwebs...

animals have been going extinct for just as long...and nearly every time a survey goes out they find new species...sure we lose a beetle but we gain a monkey..

We have not counted every species, or fully explored all of earth. That we regularly find some new species does not indicate that, overall, species are not going extinct at a too-rapid rate.

Explain how it should be dealt with - cos its got me beaten.

I understand how carbon trading/rationing/taxing (Its all the same under the skin) works.

Products with a large carbon footprint will get more expensive. It doesnt matter how its done, by a direct tax, by making the manufacturer buy carbon credits etc etc, the end result is the price increases.

Then consumption will drop, as people use less of them.

But, the things that have a large carbon footprint, are by and large food production, electricity production, and transportation.

How much would food have to go up, before you ate 40% less ?

Or do you have another idea ?

The only viable long-term options I can see are:
- more local food production (and localisation of trade in general)
- less mechanised, industrial food production
- less meat in our diets (no, I'm not a vegetarian)
Yes this will suck, but it's what's going to have to be eventually, so why fight it?
Subsidising polluters like the arsehole Nats have done won't help anything, they're going in the wrong direction.

The electricity problem should be addressed through more renewables and less consumption. Yes renewables aren't a silver bullet, and won't provide all of what we need, but they're better. The perfect is the enemy of the good and all that.

Every time GrinPiss International Corporation performs one of it's stunts,I go and pour some used engine oil down a whale's blowhole.

Yeah, 'cos you're a grown-up and all.

Only the poor will start eating like the poor, with lentils for dinner, lentil soup for breakfast, and a skipped lunch.

The rich won't.

Initially, yes. But the rich hold their lofty positions by dint of the tolerance of the poor for a certain degree of inequity. (Although it's a fair amount of inequity, with 1% of the population controlling 40% of global wealth). At some point this breaks down, and the serfs figure out they have nothing to lose, and rise up to displace the masters.

This is simply a recipe for a return to the bad old days, with shortages of everything for the majority.

Maybe. Got a better alternative? The present approach isn't sustainable, so doing nothing just means fucking up the future for our descendants, in exchange for more comfort now. Real grown up, that is.

There is NO PRICE that petrol could be increased to that would allow a little old lady to run an eco car, yet would price me out of my V8.

So, assume there comes a point when either climate of oil depletion are incontrovertibly obvious for all to see. Are you saying you would pursue your own individual best interests ahead of anyone else, no matter what? What's the moral basis for that view?

It's a retrograde step with deep ramifications. Much of NZ would be rendered uninhabitable. There's also the discussion about whether large cities are a good idea when people can't move about much.

Big cities aren't a good idea, in general, and real thought should be given to how, say, Auckland, will support itself when oil depletion becomes a pressing issue. Particularly given we've subdivided every property possible and can't provide a great deal of local food.

There's much about personal freedom that is reflected in ability to make a decision to travel 1000s of kms without asking for special permission from whatever "authorities" restrict that travel, or provide the means to undertake it.

Maintaining liberty (from oppresive control on the part of others) is indeed important - but liberty is not freedom from all constraint. That's an immature conflation of the two concepts. Oil will decline, and soon, and it's likely we will be ill-prepared - mostly due to our embrace of cultural and social norms that prohibits meaningful debate on the issue. In the medium term, we're just not going to have the same capabilities as we have today, particularly with regard to transport. If we do things right, in the long term we'll be OK. But there's bugger all evidence that we're even approaching the problem constructively.

[puddytat]

To paraphrase your argument: detailed, accurate short-term predictions are unreliable (e.g. weather), therefore long-term climate is too. So, do you agree that it's reasonably accurate that most of NZ's weather comes from the west?

If we all thought like you we'd still be in the dark ages.



The science (and ice cores) also show that the present trend is unlike anything we've had in recent history - say the last several hundred thousand years. The issue is rate of change - the fact there have been cycles before does not address the fact that the changes we are making are unusual.

Got a credible source for the palm leaf story? The only stuff I can find is from the kookier (creationist) end of the interwebs...



We have not counted every species, or fully explored all of earth. That we regularly find some new species does not indicate that, overall, species are not going extinct at a too-rapid rate.



The only viable long-term options I can see are:
- more local food production (and localisation of trade in general)
- less mechanised, industrial food production
- less meat in our diets (no, I'm not a vegetarian)
Yes this will suck, but it's what's going to have to be eventually, so why fight it?
Subsidising polluters like the arsehole Nats have done won't help anything, they're going in the wrong direction.

The electricity problem should be addressed through more renewables and less consumption. Yes renewables aren't a silver bullet, and won't provide all of what we need, but they're better. The perfect is the enemy of the good and all that.



Yeah, 'cos you're a grown-up and all.



Initially, yes. But the rich hold their lofty positions by dint of the tolerance of the poor for a certain degree of inequity. (Although it's a fair amount of inequity, with 1% of the population controlling 40% of global wealth). At some point this breaks down, and the serfs figure out they have nothing to lose, and rise up to displace the masters.



Maybe. Got a better alternative? The present approach isn't sustainable, so doing nothing just means fucking up the future for our descendants, in exchange for more comfort now. Real grown up, that is.



So, assume there comes a point when either climate of oil depletion are incontrovertibly obvious for all to see. Are you saying you would pursue your own individual best interests ahead of anyone else, no matter what? What's the moral basis for that view?



Big cities aren't a good idea, in general, and real thought should be given to how, say, Auckland, will support itself when oil depletion becomes a pressing issue. Particularly given we've subdivided every property possible and can't provide a great deal of local food.



Maintaining liberty (from oppresive control on the part of others) is indeed important - but liberty is not freedom from all constraint. That's an immature conflation of the two concepts. Oil will decline, and soon, and it's likely we will be ill-prepared - mostly due to our embrace of cultural and social norms that prohibits meaningful debate on the issue. In the medium term, we're just not going to have the same capabilities as we have today, particularly with regard to transport. If we do things right, in the long term we'll be OK. But there's bugger all evidence that we're even approaching the problem constructively.

Concise, reasoned & based on fact, ...nice to read something from someone whos not a selfish flat earther for a change.
Rainman

[ynot slow]

The thing about the world heating up etc,is you have a scientist saying it is caused by this and that.Then another will argue the point to say what a load of bollocks.Somewhere is the answer,just gotta sort it from the crap given by those extremist types,of which greenpeace are as guilty as the rest.

Saw Dr David Bellamy spaz out about global warming,listening to him he had valid points,but again it was his opinion,and was totally against any warming,and gave his views why.

[SARGE]

To paraphrase your argument: detailed, accurate short-term predictions are unreliable (e.g. weather), therefore long-term climate is too. So, do you agree that it's reasonably accurate that most of NZ's weather comes from the west?

except when it comes from the north south and rarely, east... yes .. unlike your weather bunnies in NZ i CAN read a weather map.. you learn these skills in Tornado Alley

If we all thought like you we'd still be in the dark ages.

im working on getting us back there .. good things take time.

The science (and ice cores) also show that the present trend is unlike anything we've had in recent history - say the last several hundred thousand years. The issue is rate of change - the fact there have been cycles before does not address the fact that the changes we are making are unusual.

Got a credible source for the palm leaf story? The only stuff I can find is from the kookier (creationist) end of the interwebs...

wow... got a minute?

from www.antarctica.ac.uk

Antarctica today is a cold, inhospitable desert; however, in the more distant past, the climate was much warmer. Abundant finds of fossil leaves and wood point to the existence of extensive forestation in earlier geological periods, even to within a few degrees of latitude of the South Pole itself. Dinosaurs, and later, marsupial mammals once roamed across its surface.

yea .. he said abundant...


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0805124052.htm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...olardinos.html (please notice that this one mentions PLANT EATER.. )

and this one from that wonderful creationist nuthouse known as the Discovery Channel.....

Scientists know that Antarctica used to be much warmer -- fossil leaves from ancient plants have been found to exist up until around 40 million years ago, and pollen has been dated to as early as 20 million years ago.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/0...ca-fossil.html

We have not counted every species, or fully explored all of earth. That we regularly find some new species does not indicate that, overall, species are not going extinct at a too-rapid rate.

circle of life grasshopper .. i, for one am kinda glad those pesky dinosaurs and man eating plants are extinct.. the Cro-Magnons and such woulda made worse neighbors than the Somalians..


look you lefty hippies all think the planet has an indefinite shelf life ...it doesn't .. eventually, like all living organisms, it will shrivel and die. im not advocating being like the guy with a terminal illness taking his entire fortune and fucking off to Vegas to go out with a bang ( and 3 hookers, 2 pounds of coke and a dwarf named Vinnie).. yea .. smog, trash, disease and poverty are a motherfucker but there are better ways..the earth has always made sure the strong survive and become stronger

The only viable long-term options I can see are:
- more local food production (and localisation of trade in general)

dreamer ..

- less mechanised, industrial food production

that would mean that everyone would have to actually WORK instead of sitting on the dole for 3 generations .. but in a positive light ( growing up on a family farm.. if you didnt work, you didnt eat .). might thin out the herd a bit ..

- less meat in our diets (no, I'm not a vegetarian)

yea .. go hard on that idea .. my Beer-Fed Angus T-Bones will get cheaper

look.. GE foods.. apples that will feed 4 people..hi-yield corn, rice and wheat strains.. cows that give milk that is engineered to help fight disease.. chickens crossed with ostriches and centipedes.. Kelp/seaweed/algae farms.. fully synthetic food (the blue pill is Broccoli, the red is Beer-Fed Angus T-Bone) or Soylent Green (it's gonna happen.. why fight it ..?)

Yes this will suck, but it's what's going to have to be eventually, so why fight it?

yea .. i just said that .. glad we agree on something

But the rich hold their lofty positions by dint of the tolerance of the poor for a certain degree of inequity. (Although it's a fair amount of inequity, with 1% of the population controlling 40% of global wealth). At some point this breaks down, and the serfs figure out they have nothing to lose, and rise up to displace the masters.

i say we eat the serfs..




mmmm.. serfs

Maintaining liberty (from oppresive control on the part of others) is indeed important - but liberty is not freedom from all constraint. That's an immature conflation of the two concepts. Oil will decline,

*SNIP*
If we do things right, in the long term we'll be OK. But there's bugger all evidence that we're even approaching the problem constructively.

bugger all evidence were running out of oil either .. except the word of those who stand to make a few coins off 'shortages'


pah ... liberty .. what the hell would 99% of you know about 'Liberty' .. you have assholes on both side of the fence wrapping you in bubble wrap to keep you safe from yourselves.. cant smoke .. cant eat fatty foods .. cant do this but you MUST do that..

fuck man.. most of our problems on this planet are caused by paying retirement benefits for people, who, in a 'NORMAL" evolutionary chain, would have died 20 years ago


//rant

[SARGE]

im sorry . SARGE isnt done yet ...

what about "clean BULLSHIT green BULLSHIT New Zealand"? .. one of the highest per capita users of coal for power generation and heating on the planet ..your effluent from your farms runs right into the Mighty Waiketo ... i havnt seen a sewage treatment plant yet because you just dig a big fuckoff tunnel underneath Hobson Bay and pump 30 tons of shit out into the current (just think .. that curry you had last night will be found frozen under million year old polar ice.).. you cut down trees to build big wind farms and mine old growth areas for coal

( oh ... and FYI .. OLD GROWTH forests are a waste of space as far as cleaning the air .. studies have shown that a young, vigorously growing forest sucks up more C02 than an old growth canopy)


Nuke free too .. gotta stand on principal dont ya .. but freeze your ass off in the brownouts every year.. you flood great swaths of land for your green energy hydro-dam projects and pump diesel fumes out of your generators when the power goes down


2 nuke stations on each island would sort you fellas out and have surplus to sell to Oz.. Nuke energy right now is the safest on the planet .. not so in the 80's when 3 mile island and Chernobyl happened but i think they got it under control now ..(and just think of all the vacant land in Africa to store the waste....)

and really ... is your anti-nuke stance really about that little atom? .. or is it something else?


all looks GREAT in the tourist magazines .. but, hey, they promised me i was going to fly jets when i enlisted too...

[rainman]

except when it comes from the north south and rarely, east... yes .. unlike your weather bunnies in NZ i CAN read a weather map.. you learn these skills in Tornado Alley

Wooooosh!
That was my point, flying way over your head...

wow... got a minute?

Thanks, I'll have a read.

dreamer ..

At the moment, yes. But in the medium term it's the more likely option.

that would mean that everyone would have to actually WORK instead of sitting on the dole for 3 generations .. but in a positive light ( growing up on a family farm.. if you didnt work, you didnt eat .). might thin out the herd a bit ..

Agree, a bit of "back to the farm" good old hard labour would do a lot of people a lot of good.

look.. GE foods.. apples that will feed 4 people..hi-yield corn, rice and wheat strains.. cows that give milk that is engineered to help fight disease.. chickens crossed with ostriches and centipedes.. Kelp/seaweed/algae farms.. fully synthetic food (the blue pill is Broccoli, the red is Beer-Fed Angus T-Bone) or Soylent Green (it's gonna happen.. why fight it ..?)

You're welcome to have any of that you want. But I'll take the big "no thanks" option, I know (some of) how to grow real food.

i say we eat the serfs..

Nah, they'll be too fatty.

bugger all evidence were running out of oil either .. except the word of those who stand to make a few coins off 'shortages'

Au contraire, the science is good - better than for climate change, I'd say.
Even the conservative IEA say we have to find 4-6 Saudi Arabias to meet forecast demand if the economy recovers. Got a spare Saudi in your back garden? Me neither.
Besides, the evidence is clear in the real world - the US has been in decline for 40 years (oil, I mean - though in general they're pretty fucked), Mexico is falling off a cliff, Indonesia has stopped being a nett exporter...

pah ... liberty .. what the hell would 99% of you know about 'Liberty' .. you have assholes on both side of the fence wrapping you in bubble wrap to keep you safe from yourselves..

More'n you think. And I agree NZ's got some cultural issues relating to risk aversion. I wasn't born here either.

most of our problems on this planet are caused by paying retirement benefits for people, who, in a 'NORMAL" evolutionary chain, would have died 20 years ago

Agree to some extent - but weren't you the guy wanting to engineer cows to dispense meds a few paras ago?

what about "clean BULLSHIT green BULLSHIT New Zealand"?

It's a crock of shit, is what. Doesn't exist. Part of the marketing, derived from our fucked-up cultural imperative to be special, cos we're too scared to think we're not.

Nuke free too ..

I'm not a big fan (yet) but there's no point discussing them here now. Like I said, there's a big risk aversion thing going on - and nukes do have some unresolved issues (cough, waste, cough). At some point we'll get all hot for nukes, but will agonise over the decision and probably won't be able to afford them anyway.

[davereid]

The only viable long-term options I can see are:
- more local food production (and localisation of trade in general)
- less mechanised, industrial food production
- less meat in our diets (no, I'm not a vegetarian)

Yes this will suck, but it's what's going to have to be eventually, so why fight it? Subsidising polluters like the arsehole Nats have done won't help anything, they're going in the wrong direction. The electricity problem should be addressed through more renewables and less consumption. Yes renewables aren't a silver bullet, and won't provide all of what we need, but they're better. So, assume there comes a point when either climate of oil depletion are incontrovertibly obvious for all to see. Are you saying you would pursue your own individual best interests ahead of anyone else, no matter what? What's the moral basis for that view?

Wow, lots in there to answer !

Local food production is great for countries like N.Z. that can easily produce all the food we need.

I'm not sure it will work everywhere.

There will be countries that will simply stave if food is not imported. Many countries will not have sufficient arable land without clear-felling forests either.

Less mechanised production is simply impossible. Mechanised, fertilised, pesticide based food production is all that stops the poorest 4 billion people on the planet starving.

Less meat ? Of course, as I have said before the simple mechanisim of increasing the price of meat and dairy will easily meet climate targets, by placing it out of reach of the bottom 40%.

I fight these things because I don't think they are essential, or even particularly important.

Electricity production is essentially limitless if nuclear energy is adopted in a widespread manner.

Limitless and virtually free electricity

Shortage of fossil fuels ?

Not really.

We discover reserves every day, billions of barrels in the lst year alone.

NZ has sufficient reserves of coal to meet our energy needs for 500 years, and it can be easily converted to transport fuels.

Climate change policy fails on a number of levels..

a) Is it happening (Jury still out, although public galley baying for the gallows)
b) Did we cause it ? (As above)
c) If it is happening is it really that bad - can we manage it (Yes)
d) Can we do anything about it if it is happening ? (Unlikely)
e) Is the cost of doing something about it affordable ? (not if you are in the poorest 4 billion of the world population as you will be starved to death, but yes, its affordable for the first world)