|
|
Post by sabre on Nov 4, 2022 17:02:51 GMT 12
One thing that has become very apparent over the last two-three years is that the science community has been corrupted and manipulated on a far bigger scale than I would have ever imagined possible. How accurate was all the covid modelling? How accurate has past "doom and gloom" cimate modeling been? Why is armageddon always just around the corner? What about contredictions such as; "Change to the health of our ecosystems as a result of climate change is inevitable. Even under the best case scenario, losses of at least 50% of the Reef's living coral cover are likely to occur by 2050. How humans will be affected by these changes is still uncharted yet is enormously important." Yet recently we read this; www.reuters.com/business/environment/parts-australias-great-barrier-reef-show-highest-coral-cover-36-years-2022-08-04/If science is to be taken seriously it needs to stop being politicised, weaponised and used to further nefarious agendas but I'm not going to hold my breath. |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Nov 4, 2022 18:20:34 GMT 12
Adaption isn’t enough. If in doubt, go visit Pakistan and try telling them how to adapt to 50% of their country being underwater. Or to sub-Saharan Africa and tell them the glaciers are going and that’s the end of rivers and fresh water. It’s needs mitigation plus adaption. Try reading any of the pre-COP27 reports and find any good news in them. And they are not from a single fringe / minority group with a vested interest in spreading bad news. They are from a wide group. I’ve never been a fan of corporate windfall taxes but when we realised how bad tobacco was for the population, we started doing it. Maybe now is the time to hit the oil companies who are making record profits whilst we cruise towards a catastrophic 2.5C temp increase (not the previously agreed 1.5C). Anyone got children who’ve started asking them “what’s the plan M&D?”… I don't live in Pakistan, I live in NZ. My point is, I can't see how taxing cow farts is going to improve the situation in Pakistan. The corollary is true, the world needs to secure food production. Food demand is forecast to increase by 70% globally by 2050 (or some stat with 70% increase). NZ is best placed to do that, especially as our farmers are already the most carbon efficient globally. The primary risk of climate change is to food security. Reducing food production for climate change is a complete tautology. |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Nov 4, 2022 18:22:32 GMT 12
One thing that has become very apparent over the last two-three years is that the science community has been corrupted and manipulated on a far bigger scale than I would have ever imagined possible. How accurate was all the covid modelling? How accurate has past "doom and gloom" cimate modeling been? Why is armageddon always just around the corner? What about contredictions such as; "Change to the health of our ecosystems as a result of climate change is inevitable. Even under the best case scenario, losses of at least 50% of the Reef's living coral cover are likely to occur by 2050. How humans will be affected by these changes is still uncharted yet is enormously important." Yet recently we read this; www.reuters.com/business/environment/parts-australias-great-barrier-reef-show-highest-coral-cover-36-years-2022-08-04/If science is to be taken seriously it needs to stop being politicised, weaponised and used to further nefarious agendas but I'm not going to hold my breath. And none of that would matter, if we could just get consent to build water storage for our food production. Dams. Big Dams. Water storage immediately gives climate resilience. Food security. It can also vastly increase the wealth of our country. |
|
|
|
Post by Fogg on Nov 4, 2022 18:44:03 GMT 12
You’re arguing to continue what we currently do because it’s the only thing we know. Just because it’s familiar doesn’t make it the right approach.
And just because you’re in NZ doesn’t mean you shouldn’t care about Pakistan. Because even if you don’t care about the humanitarian crisis 1000s of km from Whangsparaoa, you might care more when it hits you in the wallet. As COP27 is considering retribution to be paid by the wealthiest countries to the poorest for causing problems outside their control. NZ would get fined heavily under that model given our high carbon / agri track record.
|
|
|
|
Post by armchairadmiral on Nov 4, 2022 18:55:32 GMT 12
Adaption isn’t enough. If in doubt, go visit Pakistan and try telling them how to adapt to 50% of their country being underwater. Or to sub-Saharan Africa and tell them the glaciers are going and that’s the end of rivers and fresh water. It’s needs mitigation plus adaption. Try reading any of the pre-COP27 reports and find any good news in them. And they are not from a single fringe / minority group with a vested interest in spreading bad news. They are from a wide group. I’ve never been a fan of corporate windfall taxes but when we realised how bad tobacco was for the population, we started doing it. Maybe now is the time to hit the oil companies who are making record profits whilst we cruise towards a catastrophic 2.5C temp increase (not the previously agreed 1.5C). Anyone got children who’ve started asking them “what’s the plan M&D?”… Round and round the discussion / argument goes. Who actually knows a 2.5 increase will be 'catastrophic' ? in the 15th century or thereabouts Greenland was green . With 2.5 will it be green again / IMO no. The socalled science is BS. The offshoot moneymaking scams are the real truth. As always with pollies....just follow the dollars. BTW CC is just a natural pattern of ebbs and flows,just like the tide. Nope,no links just my observations of historical evidence |
|
|
|
Post by sabre on Nov 4, 2022 19:39:46 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Nov 4, 2022 22:04:38 GMT 12
You’re arguing to continue what we currently do because it’s the only thing we know. Just because it’s familiar doesn’t make it the right approach. And just because you’re in NZ doesn’t mean you shouldn’t care about Pakistan. Because even if you don’t care about the humanitarian crisis 1000s of km from Whangsparaoa, you might care more when it hits you in the wallet. As COP27 is considering retribution to be paid by the wealthiest countries to the poorest for causing problems outside their control. NZ would get fined heavily under that model given our high carbon / agri track record. I'm really not following that arguement. This COP 27 carry on of fining countries because of what? Europe, North America and generally the whole northern hemisphere contribute the vast amount of fossil fuel burn. In NZ I don't have a gas boiler going 24/7 like I did in the UK. And I'm arguing quite the opposite. We can't carry on doing everything we do now, because the climate is changing and we need to adapt. That means do a lot of things differently. I don't fly places, and I have the most efficient cars I can get (1x 1200 cc hybrid, 1x PHEV). AND I don't drive to work on a daily basis. But, more to the point, at a national level, what should we be doing? We already have the most carbon efficient farmers in the world. Isn't that a good thing? Shouldn't that be celebrated? If we reduce farm production, lets say milk powder, it will be replaced by a foreign farm with a greater carbon cost. So reducing our farm production is entirely counterproductive. Same with banning NZ oil prospecting. Nekminnit we are burning more coal. Biggest own goal I can think of. Lets boil down what I think your point is. If I'm right, you are saying we need to do everything we can to slow climate change, to save Pakistan? Now, this might sound like splitting hairs, but I think the countries producing all the greenhouse gases should be dealing with it. We, NZ, simply aren't big enough to make any impact. That doesn't mean we should all drive V8's. I do need to clarify my point on that. We should do what is practical. "Practical" leads to my next point... On the agriculture thing, US grain feed lots and European intensive farming are huge carbon producers compared to our outdoor grass based meat production. The difference between grain fed and grass fed beef for carbon production is massive. I'll say it again, taxing and reducing our farm production is entirely counter productive. it will lead to increased carbon production in foreign countries. Further, trying to save Pakistan by covering NZ in a mono-culture of pinetrees is a nonsense. There are so many plants / crops / trees that sequester carbon that also have an economic value. Probably the most topical are bio-fuel crops. Everything that grows on a farm sequesters carbon. Everything. All you need to do is grow more stuff. Flax seed. Hemp has all sorts of potential. The point is to grow something annually and harvest it for useful purposes. Once the pine trees have grown, thats it, they wont sequester any more carbon. But the productive land is gone, ruined by the acid effect if pine. That would be an environmental catastrophe for NZ, the irony being that the pine was planted to avoid an environmental catastrophe. PS, in terms of adaption, bananas sound like the next viable crop for NZ. And other tropical crops. Plants that grow so fast the sequester moonbeams of carbon. Then they compost down to soil, locking the carbon it, and allowing another crop to grow. On an annual basis these tropical crops would sequester more carbon than pine, but we get something economically useful, like bananas, to eat or to sell for others to eat. The govt's response to CC is just so binary and un-inspired. I honestly think people and the govt just don't get it. Debate always reverts to some tribal basis of raving activist (Restore Rail) or outright deniers who are anti any change. That is wrong, because the climate will change if we are ready or not. To sum it up, I'd put myself in the 'blue-green' camp. Environmentally active but with an economic benefit. Funny enough, I have an uncle that is probably NZ's leading blue-green greenie. Poles apart from Greenpeace, but also poles apart from extractive industries etc. The point being that some middle ground is needed to get any go-forward. Can you image how much carbon we could sequester in cash crops if we could build more water storage? Tai Tokerau Irrigation Scheme (stuck in beuacracy). Ruataniwha dam (Hawkes Bay) killed by greenies, and many other opportunities that don't see the light of day because consenting is simply impossible. |
|
|
|
Post by armchairadmiral on Nov 5, 2022 7:32:27 GMT 12
I put this up a few years ago on that other site. In the 1840's one of the major problems being faced by the Aldermen of the City of London was that the planners had forecast that unless action was taken soon by the year 1940 London would be buried under 140 ft of horse dung. As we know things sorted themselves out.! QED |
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Nov 5, 2022 8:33:06 GMT 12
so at the COP 27 talk fest they are preaching doom and gloom about glaciers disappearing. There seems to be a bit of history here realclimatescience.com/2022/11/glaciers-to-disappear-by-mid-century/Really, not one of the doom sayers' predictions has come true, whether it be Gore's disappearing Arctic ice pack, Flannery's the dams will never be full or all the forecasts of catastrophic sea level rise etc etc. Even the IPCC reports are being progressively watered down on doom predictions. So why castrate ourselves for no reason. Certainly agree we should be environmentally responsible on real physical issue but not all this make believe bullshit |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Nov 5, 2022 9:52:21 GMT 12
This article touches on just about every point I'm trying to make. Link at bottom of post. Luxon says if NZ's territorial oceans were included in out carbon accounting, we wouldn't have to pay anything. The Academics are in a flat spin, and there logic is astoundingly bad: 1) International carbon accounting only allows for sequestration from trees - this is why we are only allowed to plant trees to offset carbon, despite the oceans consuming 3 to 4 billion tonnes of carbon annually. It also explains why we can't account for cash crops, that sequester loads more carbon annually than pine. Basically, the accounting system is dictating what we do to our environment. Not any logic. 2) One academic argues that if we included our oceans, then we would also have to include bush fires, volcanoes and melting perma-frost. I wasn't aware that we had any perma-frost in NZ, but there we have it... 3) What winds me up most about this article is the oceans are about the only ability we have to actually reverse climate change. Instead of actually talking about solving the problem, the comments are being ridiculed. The technical issue here is you actually need to understand what is going on, which these academics clearly don't. The technical aspects of Ocean Carbon Sinks: *Kelp is the fastest growing plant on earth. *We need more kelp forests *Kelp forests are impacted by sediment from land *Kelp forests are impacted by kina barrens, impacted by over fishing of predators to kina, specifically crays and snapper. *Therefore, to assist kelp and the oceans to sequester more carbon, we need to target policies to reduce silt run off, and manage the fisher better * Riparian planting, especially on farmland, can have a major impact on silt entering river systems. Currently the govt and James Shaw has excluded riparian planting as an offset for farmers having to pay the fart tax. That is as counter productive as you could possible get. Just ask GO30 about his farm planting plans put on hold when the fart tax was announced. * Fisheries management. For some reason crayfish are still extracted on a commercial scale all around NZ. Stopping cray harvesting could actually stop climate change. This would be far far more effective than taxing cow farts. * We could argue till the cows come home on fisheries management, BUT, there are really simple we could already do: # plant mussle beds (and stop taking mussles). These filter feeders consume sediment and improve water visibility that enable the sun to reach the kelp forests, allowing the kelp to grow # remove the catch limit on kina, removing the legal difficulties of people just going and smashing kina so that kina barrens can be tackled head on, without any beurcartic bullshit. This would immediately allow seaweeds, echlonia and kelp to grow, sequestering carbon. It would also provide for more nursery fish, getting the ecological balance back inplace to correct overfishing and allow more kelp to thrive, sequestering more carbon. Instead, the academics laugh at Luxon, while demonstrating their ignorance. And all we are ALLOWED to do to combat climate change is plant monoculture pine trees. Linking all of this to Pakistan, the seas and oceans around the middle east are dead. Completely barren deserts. If they want to deal with climate change, they need to be getting into aquaculture / blue carbon. I'll bet you a good bottle of whisky the Pakisanis don't have to do a sediment and erosion control plan when they build a house or a road like we do... Noting the oceans are worse around the oil producing Arab nations. Go figure. www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/130377122/national-leader-christopher-luxon-under-fire-for-carbon-offset-comment |
|
|
|
Post by Fogg on Nov 5, 2022 12:12:27 GMT 12
The transition away from fossil fuels to renewables has to happen regardless of climate change because fossils will simply run out.
So if you have a scenario where:
1. You know you need to change anyway
2. The majority of scientists tell you it’s better to faster
…. then why not try to go as fast as possible, in an orderly manner?
Only a tiny minority of scientists believe it’s crying wolf. The biggest unknown is not “will it get worse?” but “how much worse will it get?”.
In that respect I agree the models are highly questionable because you’re trying to predict long-term impacts of both climate and economics in an enormously complex way.
But the simple fact that over the last century we’ve added billions of tons of new carbon to the earth’s natural cycle, and in the same time temps have increased, tells us there’s a new man-made factor in the mix. Which needs to be urgently reduced. Both because it’s bad for our health and because it’s going to run out anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Nov 5, 2022 12:46:02 GMT 12
Transition from fossil fuels is fine. It sounds very good in theory, I am arguing about the practice.
Specifically, the impact of current policies on food production. Most notably the fart tax, and the ETS resulting in mono-culture pines.
I'd posit that those disruptions don't meet the 'orderly manner' test. Especially if it results in structural reduction of food production capacity.
Climate change is one thing, but starvation is another entirely.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 5, 2022 13:09:43 GMT 12
Little old NZ paying for this no doubt?? 48 lane toll rd China  |
|
|
|
Post by Fogg on Nov 5, 2022 13:28:36 GMT 12
I agree you don’t want to strangle your (already struggling) food supply chains with more unreasonable burdens. But look to solve for the problem in multiple ways which must include a heavy dose of switch to renewables + (dare I say it here in NZ) nuclear.
|
|
|
|
Post by armchairadmiral on Nov 5, 2022 14:36:00 GMT 12
All of which fails to mention that co2 is about 409 ppm in the atmosphere. And we're allowing it to do all this to us. Talk about tail wagging dog. On that basis the crew I sail with will be the next government. Now ,if only we had $55m to buy off the media we're in !
|
|
