Comments on: The bad news, and the good

By: Doug_wellington

Doug_wellington — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 03:49:03 +0000

That is because agriculture is such a large component. The main challenge for NZ and the world is transport, or rather the expectation of cheap widely available mobility.

In my view irrespective of action on climate the transport paradigm that has become seen as the 'norm' since the 1940s(?) is on its way out. The question then becomes how do we sustain our qualities of life with much restricted mobility.

Doug

By: Little Ireland

Little Ireland — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 03:41:57 +0000

Electricity generation only accounts for 10% of NZ's emissions though

By: Macro2

Macro2 — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 03:34:54 +0000

We already have the alternative – its called Hydro and Geothermal. Wind, solar, tidal. and biofuels REDUCE the demand for drawing down on Hydro (Potential energy stays in the lakes for use at a later time). Not as far fetched as you imagine. NZ is already producing 70 – 80% of total electrical supply from renewables. It's only our consistently GROWING DEMAND for energy that forces us to overstep our renewable supply.

By: JeffM

JeffM — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:32:43 +0000

(Part 2) If saving the planet and humanity is the end goal for these initiatives, then finding a full time replacement energy source is paramount. Yet the government isn't doing this. The part time technologies that ARE being promoted, along with the carbon taxation scheme, actually require continued reliance on fossil fuels. Invention of the needed alternative to fossil fuel energy would eliminate the need to make and sell windmills, solar panels, and biofuels. And it would make carbon derivatives worthless. It appears that the government is pushing the suboptimal solution for financial gain and redistribution of wealth, while waving the banner of saving the planet. Nothing the government is doing will eliminate the use of fossil fuels, and thus will not reduce the dreaded CO2 levels to solve the "$100 billion problem."

Expectations that windmills, solar panels, and biofuels will ever replace fossil fuels are far-fetched. These are all part time sources of energy. They would make sense only if we were working hard to find the full time replacement for fossil fuels. And it seems criminal to ration fossil fuel energy with nothing being done to find a 24/7 alternative.

By: JeffM

JeffM — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 00:31:31 +0000

(Part 1) The government says manmade climate change is a threat to the planet and to humans. This is the conclusion based on 20 years of research costing about $100 billion. The government obviously isn't afraid to throw a lot of money to identify a problem of this magnitude. Why won't it do the same to find its solution? Nowhere can it be found that the government intends to make it a national goal to fund research and development to find an affordable, full time alternative energy source to replace fossil fuels. The government HAS promoted and subsidized part time alternative energy sources (wind, solar, biofuels), and is determined to pass some form of carbon trading scheme to ration the fossil fuels that drive our economy, and thus force all manufacturers to pay for the fossil fuels they require over and above their ration. Manufacturers have no alternative but to pay the price and pass it on to the consumer… unless they can find a way for windmills and solar panels to provide full time power.

By: StephenR

StephenR — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:33:36 +0000

Reminds me of a 'solution' which required higher climate taxes as temperatures rose, and lower ones as it fell – I think the assumption was that they would fall, otherwise rising would really…redistribute a lot of income Ignores the amount of time GHGs hang around too of course.

By: ctg

ctg — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 10:35:03 +0000

Ok, exclude was not the right word – my bad.

Accountability is probably the better way to frame it. Right now, there is no (personal) cost to denial. If, in ten years time, the evidence of warming becomes so overwhelming that even Girma can no longer deny it, what happens? Well, he might be a bit embarrassed, but other than losing a couple of bets, he's not going to be out of pocket.

However, if the denialists have managed to persuade to "wait another five years" before taking action, then it's going to cost all of us more to fix the problem. Why should I have to pay more in ten years time when I am perfectly willing to start now?

Maybe we need climate futures. If you think the IPCC is right, you can buy "warming futures", which will count as discounts against climate taxes in the future.

If you think the IPCC is lying, buy "cooling futures". These are free to buy now, but their future price is linked to global temperature. If the world obeys Girma, and cools down, then cooling futures grow in value. But it temperatures continue to rise, the cooling futures instead turn into a debt that increases along with temperature.

That way it is up to every individual to make an assessment of what they think is actually going to happen (as opposed to what they would like to happen).

Or not.

By: Le_Chat_Noir

Le_Chat_Noir — Mon, 14 Jun 2010 06:36:22 +0000

After all, we don't ask aroma therapists for advice on the health system....

You should not forget Ben Goldacre's chapter about Matthias Rath's campaign to cure AIDS in South Africa using vitamins.

By: Gareth

Gareth — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:50:47 +0000

I think discrimination is the better term. Rather than excluding anyone, we just need to learn to discriminate between those talking nonsense, and those with a grasp of the facts. After all, we don't ask aroma therapists for advice on the health system….

By: StephenR

StephenR — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 21:10:57 +0000

It would be nice if there was a way to exclude denialists from the debate – but can you imagine the howls of protest from Wrathall if that happened?

Not just him. At the very least that's a nice slippery slope you want to set up there, regardless of whether i agree with your proposal in itself.