Preparing for rising seas

It’s widely accepted that climate change and sea level rise are likely to be a reality in the near future, with the only uncertainties being how much, how soon and how much we can or are willing to do about it.

A report from the Commissioner of the Environment:

Preparing New Zealand for rising seas: Certainty and Uncertainty (PDF)

From the Overview (edited):

The subtitle of this report is ‘Certainty and Uncertainty’. It is certain that the sea is rising and will continue to do so for centuries to come. But much is uncertain – how rapidly it will rise, how different coastal areas will be affected, and how we should prepare. And we do need to prepare. After all, as an article in the New York Times put it this year: “Human civilization is built on the premise that the level of the sea is stable, as indeed it has been for several thousand years”.

The rising sea will lead to flooding on low-lying land near the coast, erosion of many beaches and ‘soft’ cliffs, and higher and possibly saltier coastal groundwater.

  • Flooding of coastal areas will become more frequent, more severe, and more extensive.
  • Erosion – a long-familiar problem around some of our coasts – will become more widespread.
  • Groundwater linked to the sea will rise and possibly become brackish.

However, care must be taken with generalisations. Local features matter a great deal.

For instance, open unsheltered coasts experience the full force of the sea, so are more vulnerable to flooding than enclosed bays. Beaches regularly replenished with sediment are less prone to erosion. Groundwater problems are most likely to occur in land that has been reclaimed from the sea.

Natural hazards like earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and river floods can happen at any time. In contrast, sea level rise is incremental and inexorable – its effects on our coast will unfold slowly for a period before accelerating. We must start planning, but there is enough time to plan and do it well.

Certainly the world, including New Zealand, needs to act urgently to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. However, during this investigation, I have realised that the same urgency does not apply to much of the planning we need to do for sea level rise. Indeed, haste can be counter-productive.

Because current government policy on sea level rise emphasises the need to take a ‘precautionary approach’, technical analysts have been embedding ‘precaution’ into coastal risk assessments to varying degrees. This takes various forms such as assuming ‘high end’ amounts of sea level rise.

One particular need is to avoid referring to ‘one-in-50 year’ or ‘one-in-100 year’ events. Not only is it difficult to understand, it is not a stable measure over time. The ‘high water’ caused by a storm surge riding on top of a king tide that is now expected to occur once every 100 years will occur more and more often as the sea rises.

There are aspects of planning for sea level rise that should be done with some urgency. One is concerned with the granting of consents for greenfields development. New suburbs and the expensive infrastructure they require should be viewed as long-term investments. We now see building new suburbs on land prone to liquefaction in much of the country as foolish. We should see allowing new subdivisions on vulnerable coastal land as equally foolish.

Another is the need to establish much more extensive monitoring systems. This is required before we can develop better models of shoreline erosion and accretion. Such monitoring is also needed for adaptive management, which will be the appropriate strategy in many cases. Adaptive management involves staging interventions over time as trigger points are reached.

Unusually, one of my recommendations in this report is to the Minister of Finance. It is not too soon to begin to consider the fiscal implications of sea level rise. Both central and local government will face increasing pleas for financial assistance – whether it be for building a seawall, maintaining an eroding coastal road, or, as will eventually happen, moving entire communities further inland.

What the world, including our small country, does now will affect how fast and how high the sea rises.

That’s signed by Dr Jan Wright, Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

The detailed report: Preparing New Zealand for rising seas: Certainty and Uncertainty

It’s difficult to know what can be done to mitigate possible problems and what might be futile.

But it’s become increasingly clear that we should be increasing our awareness and caution about possible changes.

Ignoring it and doing nothing is not an option.

One positive aspect is that whatever we do in response to growing concerns is not going to do any harm and will likely benefit us and our planet, regardless of how accurate predictions are of impending problems.

We should be more aware  and care better for our planet, no matter what the climate does.

 

Next Post
Leave a comment

85 Comments

  1. Kitty Catkin

     /  1st April 2016

    Brackish sounds as if it should mean tainted & dirty, not salty.I thought for years that it did.

    This has happened in the past; there are places in England where towns once were before they were washed away, I seem to remember. (mind blank as to any names of these)

    Reply
  2. Alan Wilkinson

     /  1st April 2016

    Theft of property rights by bureaucracies. It is the job of the private sector to take and manage risk, not bureaucrats pretending to know the unknowable.

    Reply
    • Clemgeopin

       /  1st April 2016

      Private sectors’ main motive and interest is making money and profits and accumulating unlimited wealth…..Not caring for others or the country. That is just incidental and secondary.That is how the wonderful money hungry and greedy capitalist free market works, doesn’t it?
      And note this : Actually, no one has an ‘ABSOLUTE’ right to property..apart from temporary custody. It belongs to the country, to nature and to ALL the people.

      Reply
      • David

         /  1st April 2016

        Can I move into your house then, it belongs to me as much as it does to you after all.

        Reply
        • Clemgeopin

           /  1st April 2016

          You gave missed the actual point. I am not surprised. No worries.

          Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  2nd April 2016

        Quite right, Clemgeopin. Therefore those who don’t believe sea level rise is an issue within the timeframe they wish to enjoy their beachfront property should be perfectly entitled to build there and risk being wrong. Those who believe otherwise can live in the hills hoping to see the risk takers meet their fate and gnashing their teeth enviously if they don’t.

        As for property belonging to the country and to nature and to all the people, well until nature makes a takeover bid for it the owners can enjoy it unmolested. And “all the people” will have to respect other people’s property if they wish them to respect theirs in return. So I think it is you who missed the actual point, not David.

        Reply
        • Clemgeopin

           /  2nd April 2016

          [1] It is your right to build and live anywhere you like as long as the government lets you do that.
          [2] You have property rights-just like I have-as long as the government gives us that right. But no one in the world has ABSOLUTE rights to any land or property or anything else for that matter. Fact.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  2nd April 2016

            “no one in the world has ABSOLUTE rights to any land or property or anything else for that matter”

            Unless they have the biggest guns. The first socialist commandment is “Give me your money”. The second is “Give me your property”.

            Reply
            • Clemgeopin

               /  2nd April 2016

              “Unless they have the biggest guns”

              Not necessarily. A majority vote in parliament can change laws.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  2nd April 2016

              Only where parliament possesses the biggest guns.

            • Clemgeopin

               /  2nd April 2016

              “Give me your money”.
              It is not yours. It is the government’s. You have just acquired it. You do not have ‘absolute’ rights to it.

              The second is “Give me your property”
              See above.

              Sad ya?
              ————–

              But sleep easy Allan. No democratic socialist government will take it away from you, because if it does, it is unlikely to get re=elected by the ‘people’, who are the real ultimate power.

            • Clemgeopin

               /  2nd April 2016

              @Alan:
              Generally ALL parliaments (governments) DO have the biggest guns, the biggest security outfits and the biggest military apparatus.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  2nd April 2016

              There are plenty of places where the parliament does not have the biggest guns and is subservient to the president, military or paramilitaries. However, even where it is supreme, power depends on who has the biggest “guns” in parliament.

              And your presumption that property is safe from democratic socialism is simply false. Obviously you don’t own much or you would know how little you can do with it as of right.

            • Clemgeopin

               /  2nd April 2016

              @Alan;
              “Obviously you don’t own much”

              You presume too much.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  2nd April 2016

              Deduction is not presumption. What you can do with your property as of right is extremely proscribed. What you can do at all is at the whim of officialdom. The Jan Wright’s of this world are working to limit it further and command power and resources to do so.

  3. “Ignoring it and doing nothing is not an option”.

    Unfortunately it is an option – one that for decades we have been polishing and perfecting.

    Our present team, the John Key lead New Zealand Inc Group have taken this to an art form.

    With guest stars like Tim Grosser, who tap danced his way around the world, delivering us to trade agreements that will go a long way to ensuring we will default on our environmental commitments (again) New Zealand Inc shows no signs of doing anything other than ignoring it and doing nothing.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  2nd April 2016

      You should celebrate this. The alternative is seen in the UK where ridiculous policies in favour of “green” energy have increased power costs and bankrupted their steel industry. You won’t of course because you are a climate change alarmist fanatic and don’t care what happens to people in pursuit of your fantasy.

      Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  2nd April 2016

      Sea levels measured at the few places in NZL that have done so for decades shows sea levels here rising at a consistent slow pace with no ‘uplift’ due to ‘global warming’.

      In fact you will see in the attached graph that the Ports of Auckland, Waitemata Harbour measurements that go back to 1900 show peak higher levels reached in the 1950’s & 1970’s then that being experienced in the mid 2000s.

      http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/climate-change/preparing-coastal-change-guide-local-government-new-zealand/part-one

      “The commissioner, Dr Jan Wright, believes the country is facing about 30cm of sea level rise over the next 50 years” – compared to 1.6mm/annum for the 110 year period prior to that? Somewhat of an exaggeration by Dr Jan Wright then?

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  2nd April 2016

        A reasonable expectation would be 30cm over the next 100 years based on current satellite observations of about 3mm per year global average. And therefore the reasonable reaction to Dr Wright’s report is to bin it as alarmist nonsense.

        Reply
        • Clemgeopin

           /  2nd April 2016

          “A reasonable expectation would be 30cm over the next 100 years based on current satellite observations of about 3mm per year global average’

          Even if the expert, Dr Alan, PhD, ACW, is correct, and says it is 100 years and not 50, well, 100 years is still not a too distant future, is it?

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  2nd April 2016

            You do realize that the typical tidal range is an order of magnitude greater than the 30cm increase we are looking at over the next century? The impact will be imperceptible. And look back a century to the knowledge and technological resources and equipment available in 1916. Project the same rate of change forward a century and you will see we can have no conception of the resources by then to deal with whatever climate produces.

            Reply
            • Clemgeopin

               /  2nd April 2016

              Thank God then as everything is fine and no worries at all, just as the massive billions of dollars of debt (plus $26 million for Key’s folly) this ‘efficient’ government has accumulated for our ‘rock star’ economy for our grand kids to pay off.

  4. Don W

     /  1st April 2016

    Where in NZ is the sea level rising. Are there statistics that show this.?

    Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  2nd April 2016

      See my post above – very tiny increase of 1.6mm/year for the previous 110 years or so.

      Reply
      • Clemgeopin

         /  2nd April 2016

        “very tiny increase of 1.6mm/year for the previous 110 years or so’

        1.6mmx110=176mm=17.6 cm. Tiny?

        And Remember that the ‘previous’ 110 years did not have the huge industries, transport, pollution etc as in the modern times.

        BTW, do you deny climate change and its effects? Do you think we should take precautions and measures now or not?

        Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  2nd April 2016

          FACT: 110 years of 1.6mm rises/annum = 17.6cm (or 16cm/century) and NO change shown due to in more recent times to supposedly hugely increased ‘global warming’ activity – with historic evidence.

          FICTION: Dr Jan Wright, believes (i.e. made up/ projects) the country is facing about 30cm of sea level rise over the next 50 years”, double the rate of the previous century – with no supporting evidence.

          We should always be mindful of the environment and ways to further reduce our footprint HOWEVER deliberate misinformation/ scaremongering of the masses is not the way to do it.

          Reply
          • Clemgeopin

             /  2nd April 2016

            “We should always be mindful of the environment and ways to further reduce our footprint”

            Why?

            And what is ‘the way to do it’?

            Reply
            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  2nd April 2016

              This is where the ‘climate change deniers’ label has been created by the believers to denigrate anybody with a different prospective on ‘climate change’ and stifle real debate. So much for ‘free speech’…..

              “The science on global warming is settled, so settled that 20 climate scientists are asking President Barack Obama to prosecute people who disagree with them on the science behind man-made global warming”.

              So called ‘deniers’ are not denying climate change at all – what they are saying is;

              *That Climate change has happened since time began & therefore man is NOT the main driver of it.
              *The planet is far more robust then believers give it credit for.
              *The so-called ‘warming period’ is far too short a time frame in the history of the world to make any prediction positive proof that man is the main cause of it (for instance we know medieval times had a considerable ‘warming period’ as well on at least a par with today).
              *Current day data is being manipulated – modern day temperatures modified upwards, older data downwards. Computer predictions have so far been all wrong and well overstated. Scientists and govts have a financial interest in keeping the ‘man-made global warming’ myth alive.

    • Zedd

       /  2nd April 2016

      @Don W

      I live in Sth Dn.. the tide is getting higher here & the sea wall at St. Clair is causing big concerns.. to locals :/

      @pdb ; more ostrich responses ? 😦

      Reply
      • Pantsdownbrown

         /  2nd April 2016

        No, I think it’s your perception is lacking? And unless you are 100 years plus old how do you know what is normal for Dunedin?

        Reply
        • Zedd

           /  2nd April 2016

          how do you know.. i’m not 1000 years old ?
          😀

          Reply
          • Pantsdownbrown

             /  2nd April 2016

            You’re right – from your comments you do appear to live in the distant past?

            Reply
  5. Clemgeopin

     /  1st April 2016

    “Ignoring it and doing nothing is not an option.

    One positive aspect is that whatever we do in response to growing concerns is not going to do any harm and will likely benefit us and our planet, regardless of how accurate predictions are of impending problems.
    We should be more aware and care better for our planet, no matter what the climate does.”

    Very well said!

    Only low IQ fools and selfish dumb arses that don’t really care for the future of our planet Earth and the future of our children will continue to ignore this major issue.

    I am so surprised that even China is taking MANY serious steps to control emissions and fossil fuels!

    Glad also that even Pope Francis is so concerned about this. Key, National and ACT not so much!

    Reply
    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  2nd April 2016

      Clem: “Only low IQ fools and selfish dumb arses that don’t really care for the future of our planet Earth and the future of our children will continue to ignore this major issue”.

      So you are ignoring it then?

      Reply
      • Clemgeopin

         /  2nd April 2016

        Funny! Are you trying hard to be a smart arse?

        Reply
        • Pantsdownbrown

           /  2nd April 2016

          Just pointing out that you have lost the argument if your position is that all those that take up an alternative view to yours are all ‘low IQ fools’………..

          Reply
          • Clemgeopin

             /  2nd April 2016

            “alternative view to yours are all ‘low IQ fools’………..’

            May be not low IQ fools, but fools nevertheless, in my opinion.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  2nd April 2016

              I had no idea the word has so many definitions. For the avoidance of doubt, when using the term fool, pick the number that applies please.
              Fool
              1. One who is deficient in judgement, sense, or understanding.
              2. One who acts unwisely on a given occasion: I was a fool to have quit my job.
              3. One who has been tricked or made to appear ridiculous; a dupe: They made a fool of me by pretending I had won.
              4. Informal A person with a talent or enthusiasm for a certain activity: a dancing fool; a fool for skiing.
              5. A member of a royal or noble household who provided entertainment, as with jokes or antics; a jester.
              6. One who subverts convention or orthodoxy or varies from social conformity in order to reveal spiritual or moral truth: a holy fool.
              7. A dessert made of stewed or puréed fruit mixed with cream or custard and served cold.
              8. Archaic A mentally deficient person; an idiot.

            • Iceberg

               /  2nd April 2016

              Do you have a view on why its the Left that has been left with taking up the cudgel in favour of climate change?

            • Clemgeopin

               /  2nd April 2016

              @Iceberg:
              “Do you have a view on why its the Left that has been left with taking up the cudgel in favour of climate change?”

              May be because
              the RIGHT is generally selfish, conservative, short sighted and introvert towards self, money and immediate profits,

              while
              the LEFT is generally extrovert, progressive and concerned about the world, plight of other people, justice, fairness and long sighted in economic, social justice and environmental issues.

              I think MOST of the progress in the world has been achieved by the leftist progressive ideas with great effort and huge sacrifices made against tremendous odds.

              Many of them were jailed, punished, shot, and destroyed by powerful forces while at least one was crucified.

            • Clemgeopin

               /  2nd April 2016

              @Gezza:

              Interesting! Many of those definitions easily apply to me at different times and circumstances!

            • Gezza

               /  2nd April 2016

              I think MOST of the progress in the world has been achieved by the leftist progressive ideas with great effort and huge sacrifices made against tremendous odds.
              I like many of the points you’re making Clemgeopin but this is far too sweeping a statement. A helluva lot of industrial, technological and infrastructural progress has historically been made by private enterprise, especially in countries like the UK and USA, and wouldn’t have occurred without capitalism..

            • Gezza

               /  2nd April 2016

              I think MOST of the progress in the world has been achieved by the leftist progressive ideas with great effort and huge sacrifices made against tremendous odds.

              Sorry my !st sentence above should be a blockquote of your statement – not sure what I’m doing wrong with these…

            • Iceberg

               /  2nd April 2016

              So you just make up your own definitions of Left and Right?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  2nd April 2016

              “Many of them were jailed, punished, shot, and destroyed by powerful forces while at least one was crucified.”

              For the last century there are few challengers to the efficiency of the Left in killing their political opponents. Though admittedly they are slow to claim credit for the National Socialists and their contribution to the “Death by Government” toll:
              https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM

            • Clemgeopin

               /  2nd April 2016

              @Gezza:
              “A helluva lot of industrial, technological and infrastructural progress has historically been made by private enterprise, especially in countries like the UK and USA, and wouldn’t have occurred without capitalism.”

              Yes, of course!…But not by capitalists alone. They could not achieve jack shit without the effort and work of the workers too and the common people, the consumers.

              Neither I nor Democratic Socialism is against the capitalists. What we do not agree with is the disproportional greed, profits and huge wealth going upwards towards them without any controls or limits rather than in a much fairer manner not just to them but also towards the workers, the society and the government too.

              The crooks are even AGAINST the workers and their union and collective bargaining and yet the capitalists themselves form their own powerful unions to safeguard their own greedy interests. How fair is that!

            • Clemgeopin

               /  2nd April 2016

              @Iceberg:

              Yes, someone has to at some time make their own definitions. That is the first law of definitions. (Read MagnaCarta)

              You asked me for my ‘view’ and I took time to write it. You don’t agree with my view? Ok. Give me yours.

            • Gezza

               /  2nd April 2016

              @Alan to equate the progressive democratic socialism of decades of Western social democracies with the murderous communist soviet, chinese, and other genocidal regimes, as well as with the Nazis whose idea of government was the Furherprinzip and opposed to both socialism and capitalism, is so absurd its both dishonest and risible.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  2nd April 2016

              @Gezza, so a few Lefties killed by mad ruthless conservatives are not to be contrasted with millions of conservatives killed by mad ruthless Lefties? A tad selective don’t you think?

              @C, I’m wondering about your “progressive” label. I suspect it historically includes a lot of small government liberals.

            • Gezza

               /  2nd April 2016

              Alan your hyperventilating about lefties, to the point where you start conflating social democrats with murderous communist & nazi regimes is beyond ridiculous: it’s beginning to look pathological.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  2nd April 2016

              You are being thick, Gezza. I’m not hyperventilating. I pointed out the multiple failures of communism disproved the Left’s deluded zero sum theory of wealth. I pointed out those martyred for being Lefties are vastly outnumbered by those martyred for not being Lefties. The conflating is entirely in your own mind.

            • Gezza

               /  2nd April 2016

              The “left” doesn’t have one single,solitary “zero sum” economic philosophy, Alan, not is the “left” all communist. You’re the one who’s being thick.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  2nd April 2016

              @Gezza, be kind to your straw men since you made them all by yourself. Since Clemgeopin’s definition of the Left apparently includes Jesus I am well aware it is a rather diverse assortment.

    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  2nd April 2016

      “whatever we do in response to growing concerns is not going to do any harm ”

      Tell that to the 15000 workers who will lose their jobs in the UK when Tata closes down their steel industry.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  2nd April 2016

        I love it when the loony Left give me downticks for advocating for their workers!! Morons.

        Reply
        • Iceberg

           /  2nd April 2016

          Sometimes I’ll give you one to stop you getting complacent. Fighting lefties is God’s work, need to keep on top of your game.

          Reply
          • Clemgeopin

             /  2nd April 2016

            “Fighting lefties is God’s work,”

            I think Jesus was a lefty and would be one if he was alive today in person. Don’t you agree?

            Here is a list of some famous democratic socialists:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism#Notable_democratic_socialists
            ————–
            May be you can give us a list of famous free market capitalists.

            Reply
            • Iceberg

               /  2nd April 2016

              You’re probably right. He’s been hijacked by godbotherers who tend to be from the Right.

              …and in hindsight, Wilky might have an issue at the Pearly Gates.

              “What have you been doing with your life?”

              Sticking it up Social Justice Warriors”

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  2nd April 2016

              Of course we could but what is the point?

              As for Jesus, “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s”. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the omnipotent state but rather an injunction to exercise individual conscience and moral judgement. Likewise the parable of the Good Samaritan emphasized individual action and charity, not reliance on the state.

              Or if you want modern examples, in general the more fervently religious a community, the less supportive of big government they are.

            • Gezza

               /  2nd April 2016

              As far as I recall Jesus bludged off everybody he could.

            • Clemgeopin

               /  2nd April 2016

              @Alan
              “Of course we could but what is the point?”

              I am curious to know your list.

              “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s”.

              He was just telling the greedy capitalist crooks to pay their bloody taxes properly and not be dodgers and technical thieves.

              “Likewise the parable of the Good Samaritan”

              Have you heard of the Sermon on the Mount?
              https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205-7

              And have you heard what Jesus said about the rich pricks?:

              “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God”
              http://biblehub.com/mark/10-25.htm

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  2nd April 2016

              “He was just telling the greedy capitalist crooks to pay their bloody taxes properly and not be dodgers and technical thieves.”

              Your history is shaky. The tax revolt was against the Roman occupation.

              Nothing in the Sermon on the Mount advocates for socialism.

              As for the camel quote, without the rich socialists would have no tax to pay for their welfare state. Talk about shooting themselves in both feet, not to mention disgraceful ingratitude.

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  2nd April 2016

              Judas was a lefty – his latest incarnation in the Labour party goes by the name of Grant Robertson…….

            • Clemgeopin

               /  2nd April 2016

              @ PdownBrown:
              Why tell us? Try saying that to his face.

            • Clemgeopin

               /  2nd April 2016

              @Alan:
              “without the rich, socialists would have no tax to pay for their welfare state”

              You are making a classic mistake. The wealth of the rich always comes from the effort of the workers and the people in society and also because the government laws lets them. It is not automatic nor can they take it to heaven when they are Kaput. Ask the Egyptian Pharaohs and their mummies.

            • Pantsdownbrown

               /  2nd April 2016

              Clemgeopin / April 2, 2016
              @ PdownBrown:
              Why tell us? Try saying that to his face.

              I’m sure he could take it on the chin(s).

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  2nd April 2016

              @C, no, you are making the classic mistake that wealth is zero sum and the rich take from the poor rather than the reverse. Communism showed the failure of that presumption and that killing the rich made the nation destitute. Those who become rich through innovation and efficiency make the whole nation and the world richer.

            • Clemgeopin

               /  2nd April 2016

              @PDBrown:
              “Judas was a lefty’

              I reckon he was a capitalist prepared to betray his good friend and use cut throat methods to make a fast buck by way of 30 pieces of silver, a considerable wealth in those times when the minimum wage or the living wage was no where near the democratic socialist fought and achieved $15 plus /hour.

            • Clemgeopin

               /  2nd April 2016

              @a Wilkinson:
              “You are making the classic mistake that wealth is zero sum and the rich take from the poor”

              I did not say that!

              “Communism showed the failure of that presumption and that killing the rich made the nation destitute”.

              I am not advocating Communism or their evil ways. Nor do I support killing the rich.

              “Those who become rich through innovation and efficiency make the whole nation and the world richer.”

              Yes, I agree, but the people, the society, the government and the workers who all help the rich get richer should also enjoy the fruits of their combined cooperative effort in a fairer way.

              O am not advocating the evil Communism nor the unfair evil capitalism as they exist at present. What I am advocating, if you did not yet fathom, is a just, reasonable and fairer Democratic Socialist system that rejects the bad parts of both Capitalism and Communism and takes the good aspects of those philosophies and systems with the bonus of freedom, justice, care, rule of law and democracy.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  3rd April 2016

              I know what you are advocating. You want the affluence capitalism, free markets and respect for life, liberty and property brings but don’t want to respect those rights. You want to have and eat someone else’s cake for free. You close your eyes to the consequence they won’t bake any more or will take their bakery elsewhere. You want them to do what you wouldn’t or couldn’t do. And you wrap all this up in the politics of envy and resentment.

            • Clemgeopin

               /  3rd April 2016

              @ Allan Wilkinson:

              [“I know what you are advocating. You want the affluence capitalism, free markets and respect for life, liberty and property brings but don’t want to respect those rights. You want to have and eat someone else’s cake for free. You close your eyes to the consequence they won’t bake any more or will take their bakery elsewhere. You want them to do what you wouldn’t or couldn’t do. And you wrap all this up in the politics of envy and resentment’]

              No, you are so wrong about me or my philosophy!

              That must be one of the most, if not the most, stupid, crazy and false dumb arse post you have ever made.

              I challenge you to better that.

          • Clemgeopin

             /  2nd April 2016

            @ Pantsdownbrown
            “I’m sure he could take it on the chin(s).”

            Don’t know. Go find out!

            Reply
      • Clemgeopin

         /  2nd April 2016

        Tata is an Indian company. Why did they leave? May be their profits were not enough? After all, UK has a capitalist Tory right wing Government. Why did they kick out Tata?

        Reply
          • Clemgeopin

             /  2nd April 2016

            Not sure why anyone would give you a down vote for that. I didn’t. At least I don’t think I did by mistake.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  2nd April 2016

              Oh no, I never believed it would be you, Clemgeopin. These are people unable to articulate any kind of justification for their beliefs. A silent festering minority.

        • Nelly Smickers

           /  2nd April 2016

          My hubby was saying that TATA now even own Jaguar !!

          Wayne heard this joke about them the other day, and told it to me in his best ‘Indian accent’ XD

          >> The big boss of TATA walks into his plush office one morning, not realising his zip was down.

          His beautiful secretary walks up to him and whispers quietly, “Sir, when you left home this morning, did you forget to close your garage door?”

          This was not something Mr Tata immediately understood, so he walked into his office looking a bit puzzled.

          When he was done with his paperwork, he suddenly noticed his zipper was down. He pulled it up and remembered what his secretary had said. So looking for an excuse, he went out to ask her to get him a cup of Chai.

          When he got to her desk, he asked, “When you saw the garage open, did you see my JAGUAR parked in there?”

          The secretary smiled for a moment, and said, “No, but I did see a TATA NANO with 2 flat tyres” ‘

          Reply
          • Clemgeopin

             /  2nd April 2016

            “2 flat tyres’

            Can’t he just pump them up or at least ask someone to?

            ‘What does it profit a rich capitalist who owns a huge car industry but lose air in his own nano tyres!’

            Reply
  6. Iceberg

     /  2nd April 2016

    It’s better to ignore any “authority” predicting the end. Otherwise you just end up like a prepper, with too many out of date Baked Bean cans and flat torch batteries. When I was young, Nuclear War was going to end civilisation for sure. Since then it’s been dozens of diseases, viruses, asteroids, Raptures etc. Y2K anyone? I still have my Tamiflu prescription from 2009 when Swine Flu was going to wipe us all out. (actually it did wipe me out for a couple of weeks:))

    Climate Change is just the new disaster gravy train. .

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_of_the_end_of_the_world

    Reply
    • Clemgeopin

       /  2nd April 2016

      “Climate Change is just the new disaster gravy train”

      Frame that quote and hang it up in your house for your great grandchildren to read and be proud of you. Do you support Trump? I might send him a facebook message to put that great quote of yours on his gold gravestone.

      Reply
    • MaureenW

       /  2nd April 2016

      Yes, it’s another disaster gravy train. Historically, climates do change and I doubt that recycling and carbon taxes with fix that. Better to invest in a good coat (or sun hat)..

      Reply
  7. Pantsdownbrown

     /  2nd April 2016

    Maybe he could hang it up next to this one: “95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong”.

    Reply
    • Clemgeopin

       /  2nd April 2016

      “Maybe he could hang it up next to this one: “95% of Climate Models Agree: Climate Models Agree”

      Um, may be that is why he choose two different Climatic models first Ivana and then Melania!
      Hopefully one day he will have the ‘Road to Damascus’ moment and see an inevitable massive sea change!

      Reply
      • Clemgeopin

         /  2nd April 2016

        Oops, “95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong”.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: