How ‘intrinsically linked’ is the environment and social justice?

Greens have been re-expressing how they think that environmental issues can’t be separated from social justice.

Green list candidate from last election:

Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick‏:

Hawkins is a Green Party Dunedin city counsellor.

Alternate views:

 

Obviously there is crossover between environmental and social issues, as there are with many other issues, but Greens seem somewhat obsessed with promoting an unarguable and inextricable connection between the environment and social issues.

They can, to an extent at least, easily be dealt with separately. Better farming practices and cleaning up waterways can be addressed, as they should, without having to give benefits to anyone who wants them without question.

What the Greens seem to be angling at is if the State gives everyone nice warm dry houses for life, and bicycle lanes and electric trains, and health food, and all the health care they need, then the environment will work itself out.

But I have never seen them explain how this transition will actually work, and how it can be paid for without the country going broke (in which case both the environment and society will suffer).

They are really just trying to justify their choice, a party with a dual purpose, saving the environment and instituting socialism. They have chosen to intrinsically link them in their policies, but are a bit shaky on another essential – economic sustainability.

Is there any example of a sustainable socialist country without social or environmental problems? Or is it a grand idealistic state that can never be reached?

It appears to me that Green Party members may be brainwashed into believing that they can’t champion environmental issues without also buying fully into a socialist system of government.

111 Comments

  1. David

     /  April 10, 2018

    Watermelons.

    • robertguyton

       /  April 10, 2018

      Immature comment there, David. Like calling National, “Nazis”, and something Pete comes down hard on.

      • Griff

         /  April 10, 2018

        .The Greens have been struggling with the tension between hard left and environment factions sine the days of the Values party .

        The Values Party was a New Zealand political party. It is considered the world’s first national-level environmentalist party,
        …..
        Decline of the party
        Subsequent to the demoralising election result, the Values Party faced internal conflict between the “red” greens and the “fundamentalist” Greens, and it fragmented amidst quarrels about organisational principles. Kunowski resigned as party leader following the 1978 election in order to pursue a career as a banker.

        In May 1990, however, remnants of the Values Party merged with a number of other environmentalist organizations to form the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Values_Party

        Living a Green lifestyle I should also be a “Green” voter ..
        If the Greens were purely an environmental party I would be.
        Unfortunately They are not. The far left influences their economic policy to much for them to be a sane option. Pol Pot is an extreme example of the far left mindset found within the Greens .
        Following their policy’s would destroy the economy, destabilize society and make environmental reform unobtainable and unsustainable dream.

        • Blazer

           /  April 10, 2018

          Al’s old party!Kunowski left to become a…banker!!Bol.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  April 10, 2018

            Kunowski was actually from the socialist Left wing of the Values Party. He wasn’t a banker though he worked for a Building Society for a while:
            http://www.lukey.co.nz/people/tonykunowski.html

            The unbalanced world view of the Greens was why I never joined them. However, relative to the current lot Fitzimmons and Donald practised what they preached and had their feet on the ground.

        • robertguyton

           /  April 10, 2018

          So, Pete – here Griff links Pol Pot with the Greens, and you don’t blink an eye, but when I point out the similarity with linking Adolf Hitler with National, ” Adolf Hitler is an extreme example of the far right mindset found within National” my comment “vapourizes”? How come?

          • alloytoo

             /  April 10, 2018

            Don’t know why it vapourizes, perhaps because it’s historically incorrect to describe the Nazi’s as far right?

          • High Flying Duck

             /  April 10, 2018

            Hitler was both a Greenie and a Socialist Robert. He was even vegetarian.

            • Blazer

               /  April 10, 2018

              you are an authority on Hitler …are you?

            • High Flying Duck

               /  April 10, 2018

              “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions”
              – Adolf Hitler 1927

            • High Flying Duck

               /  April 10, 2018

              I’m not an authority Blazer, but I have read plenty about Hitler’s views and party policies of the Nazis. The green credentials of the Nazi’s are well known, and the socialist policies are there for anyone to see.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  April 10, 2018

              I’m not going to get into a Hitler argument, but Hitler was more or less vegetarian from 1937. The Nazis banned animal testing and vivisection (although PETA and others try to dispute this).
              Wiki for lack of time to properly search:

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_welfare_in_Nazi_Germany

            • Blazer

               /  April 10, 2018

              ‘more or less’….very good, from Joyce’s manual…’pretty legal’.The wonderous world of the…ranting,frothing..right.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  April 10, 2018

              FFS Blazer…it wasn’t even the major point I was making. But:

              https://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/9859294/Hitlers-food-taster-speaks-of-Fuhrers-vegetarian-diet.html

              Hitler’s food taster speaks of Führer’s vegetarian diet
              A woman who served as Adolf Hitler’s food taster has claimed that the Führer was a dedicated vegetarian.

              Margot Woelk, 95, said that Hitler ate only the freshest fruit and vegetables during the two and a half years that she was forced to check his food for traces of poison.

              During the Second World War, Mrs Woelk, a German citizen whose husband had been sent to fight, was taken by the SS to Hitler’s Eastern Front headquarters in modern-day Poland, known as the “Wolf’s Lair”.

              There, she joined a team of a dozen other women whose job it was to protect Hitler from any attempts to poison him.

              She said: “Between 11 and 12 o’clock, we had to taste the food, and only after all of us had tried it was it driven to the headquarters by the SS.

              “It was all vegetarian, the most delicious fresh things, from asparagus to peppers and peas, served with rice and salads. It was all arranged on one plate, just as it was served to him. There was no meat and I do not remember any fish.

            • Blazer

               /  April 10, 2018

              I’m not going to argue with you but…’Margot Woelk, 95’…probably suffering from amnesia,dementia or…both.,

            • robertguyton

               /  April 10, 2018

              Complete bollocks, HFD.

            • Griff

               /  April 10, 2018

              I see high flying duck is repeating the usual rubbish about Nazis not being far right
              Cracks me up no end when that bullshit is repeated
              Red baiter was far right.
              When he retired from commenting he nominated a new savoir of the far right on NZ political blogs at true blue.
              EAD
              EAD is an admitted National socialist .
              A Nazi.
              I have never seen the likes of Duck dispute EAD and call him a lefty.

              Far-right politics
              From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

              Far-right politics are politics further on the right of the left-right spectrum than the standard political right, particularly in terms of more extreme nationalist,[1][2] and nativist ideologies, as well as authoritarian tendencies.[3]

              The term is often associated with Nazism,[4] neo-Nazism, fascism, neo-fascism and other ideologies or organizations that feature extreme nationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, racist or reactionary views.[5] These can lead to oppression and violence against groups of people based on their supposed inferiority, or their perceived threat to the native ethnic group,[6][7] nation, state[8] or ultraconservative traditional social institutions.[9]

              Duck is repeating bullshite generated by the far right conservatives of the USA trying to distance themselves from the implications of their authoritarian ideology.
              As usual what conservatives think and realty do not coincide.
              The poor conservative followers are so easily manipulated by their leadership with outright crap..

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 10, 2018

              The far Left are just as fascist as the far Right as Stalin and Mao and Pol Pot have all proved. That they express it in terms of class rather than race is irrelevant. Hitler was a socialist until he turned his hatreds international and then he slid easily into fascism. There is no essential difference.

            • Griff

               /  April 10, 2018

              Tell is something new Alan

              In political theory, the horseshoe theory asserts that the far left and the far right, rather than being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear political continuum, in fact closely resemble one another, much like the ends of a horseshoe. The theory is attributed to French writer Jean-Pierre Faye.

              Horseshoe theory – Wikipedia

              As referenced by me in a comment below.
              Still does not change the fact that Nazism and Hitler are to the far right off the political spectrum.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  April 10, 2018

              Griff – most of the great genocides in recent history were committed by the far left.
              The far left is also far more associated with anti-semitism.
              Hitler believed in private ownership, but only insofar as it could exist to serve the state. He proscribed production, wages, who could be sold to and for how much.
              His policies included significant green initiatives:

              “The Nazis created nature preserves, championed sustainable forestry, curbed air pollution, and designed the autobahn highway network as a way of bringing Germans closer to nature.”

              Nationalism is broadly considered right wing, but much of their social and economic policy was decidedly of the left.

            • Griff

               /  April 10, 2018

              HFD
              If you want to gibber your far right garbage please address it to someone too stupid to realize you talk bull poop.
              Reading such illogical contortions addressed to me makes me feel in need of an urgent shower .

              https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Loaded_language
              https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

              You are trying to link NAZI to environmentalism to discredit environmentalism after trying to deny that NAZI ideology was closer to your far right views.

              As the topic is can social justice and environmentalism be separated
              I guess you have answered
              You can be both an environmentalist and a genocidal fascist far right scumsucker.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  April 10, 2018

              Griff, if you go to the top, Robert linked the Nazi’s with National. I just rebutted that.
              Your constant need to spout ad hominem debases your points – which on occasion are worth reading.
              I wasn’t linking anything, just pointing out that Robert was being specious.
              Now perhaps you should have that shower.

            • Griff

               /  April 10, 2018

              Snowflakes is a Conservative snarl word.
              Classic wingnut projection .
              https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

            • alloytoo

               /  April 11, 2018

              @Griff “I see high flying duck is repeating the usual rubbish about Nazis not being far right”

              Revisionist history tosh.

              Racism right wing, more often than not racism = left wing.

            • Griff

               /  April 11, 2018

              Revisionist history tosh.

              I think we can agree that the oxford dictionary is probably as authoritative as we can get for the meaning of any word in English .

              Filed Under Nazi.

              The Nazi Party was formed in Munich after the First World War. It advocated right-wing authoritarian nationalist government, and developed a racist ideology based on anti-Semitism and a belief in the superiority of ‘Aryan’ Germans. Its leader, Adolf Hitler, who was elected Chancellor in 1933, established a totalitarian dictatorship and precipitated the Second World War. The Nazi Party collapsed at the end of the War and was outlawed.

              https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/nazi

              QED.

          • Griff

             /  April 10, 2018

            Pol Pot is an extreme example of the far left mindset found within the Greens .

            Ya do note the qualifier don’t ya?

            Overton window in NZ
            National is center right .
            Labour is center left .
            Act is far right .
            Greens are far left .
            NZF is center populist .

            Being green doesn’t make you a far lefty.

            I don’t think ripping of all those rich bastards who pay tax to fund your life style, as the former co leader of the green party endorsed is a green option.
            If we all behaved as she did there would be no social welfare as there would be no honest tax payers to support social welfare .
            Pol pot….destroy capitalistic society and the changes we have seen over the last four century’s and go back to a simpler time .
            Horseshoe theory.
            The extremes of conservatism think the same.
            There was no simpler better time.

            As alloytoo has pointed out Maslow’s hierarchy of needs.
            it is only our capitalist society that gives us the luxury of lifting our eyes from the grindstone long enough to see the world.

            • robertguyton

               /  April 10, 2018

              “Ya do note the qualifier don’t ya?”
              No. Which bit’s the “qualifier”?

        • Kitty Catkin

           /  April 10, 2018

          Griff, I live a green lifestyle, too. I don’t eat meat, I reuse and recycle* and all the rest of it, but nothing would induce me to vote Green.*

          Their remarks about Simon Bridges are nonsense, I am sure that he isn’t as idiotic as they make him out to be just because he doesn’t agree with them on all things.

          The word ‘exploit’ implies that people are exploitable, and that means that they are stupid (except in extreme circumstances, as in some Third World countries where they have no option – and even then, they are unlikely to be too dimwitted to realise that they are being exploited) It’s an insult to the supposed exploiters and the supposed exploited to use it as freely and vaguely as Greens do.

          As overpopulation is a Green issue in general, it’s a bit ironic that someone who’s had 6 children sees nothing ironic in her joining this party, Do as I say and all that.

          • Kitty Catkin

             /  April 10, 2018

            * I have just re-covered an old chair with a blanket that had been used before for sofa cushion covers, How green is that ? The chair looks good, very colourful and the only materials used were some sewing thread. The sofa has been re-covered with an unused bedspread. Again, very green 😀

            • Gezza

               /  April 10, 2018

              Well done. I’ve got an old bog standard foam seat office meeting room chair upstairs in my music room whose fabric at the corners & edges has frayed & I’ve been wondering if I should have a go at re-covering it but not sure how to do the corners without complicated cutting & sewing.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  April 10, 2018

              Corners are easy once you know. Puppy-ear them. That means folding them across the corner once the seams have been done, sewing and cutting off the triangle. It’s harder to describe that to do. Try it with a bit of paper. Make the cushion cover tight-fitting but not too tight,

              I see that reusing blankets is still trendy, It looks nice, too.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  April 10, 2018

              Try it with an envelope. (light bulb moment) With the real thing, make sure that you measure the edge height.

            • Gezza

               /  April 10, 2018

              No I think you described that well, I see what you mean. How do you secure them temporarily to sew the seams – pins?

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  April 10, 2018

              Yes. But make sure that the seam is the same size as the squab’s height.

            • Gezza

               /  April 10, 2018

              Don’t reply here, Kitty – General Chat’s better for this.
              Sorry for total diversion folks 🙂

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  April 10, 2018

              Too late, it’s talking about being good greenies and recycling, anyway,

            • Gezza

               /  April 10, 2018

              True. Good thinking. 😀

          • robertguyton

             /  April 10, 2018

            Who then, Kitty, can advise?
            Angels?

      • David

         /  April 10, 2018

        “Immature comment there, David. Like calling National, “Nazis”, and something Pete comes down hard on.”

        It’s not at all. Calling the National party ‘Nazis’ is simply a meaningless insult, not reflective of any policy position the National party actually has.

        The term watermelon is very reflective of the Green party. The green policies are very much secondary to the Green parties actual beliefs. The primary goal of the Green party is a socialist one, with achieving power being central to this. Your postings reflect this completely. You are quite happy to see policies that are good for the environment fail, just as long as you get into power, you have boasted about this many times here.

        The green stuff is just window dressing. It’s the ‘socal justice’ that drives the Green party.

        • Blazer

           /  April 10, 2018

          ‘The green policies are very much secondary to the Green parties actual beliefs. ‘…could make a strong case ,that the same is true for…National.

          • alloytoo

             /  April 10, 2018

            Blazer / April 10, 2018

            “‘The green policies are very much secondary to the Green parties actual beliefs. ‘…could make a strong case ,that the same is true for…National.”

            It is not however Nationals brand and supposedly very reason for being.

            • Blazer

               /  April 10, 2018

              what isn’t?What do you think is National’s reason …’for being’?

          • David

             /  April 10, 2018

            That’s no surprise at all is it? That is consistent with their image.

          • alloytoo

             /  April 10, 2018

            “to deliver a stronger economy that can deliver more for New Zealanders”

        • robertguyton

           /  April 10, 2018

          Not an immature comment, David?
          Pfffffffffft!

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  April 10, 2018

        Watermelon and Nazi are hardly in the same league as anyone who knows German history will know.

  2. Ray

     /  April 10, 2018

    So if the Greens (hint it’s in the name) think the World is be degraded by people why would they have a co-leader who has six children.
    “It’s ok when we do it” Syndrome again.

    • robertguyton

       /  April 10, 2018

      It’s not “people” Ray, it’s what they/we do that degrades the World. Criticising an individual for the number of children they have? Immature.

      • Gezza

         /  April 10, 2018

        You’re not the best person to be giving anyone lectures on immaturity, Robert.
        You know it, dude! 👍🏼

        • robertguyton

           /  April 10, 2018

          Doubtless you are right, Gezza; there’ll be someone better out there, somewhere.

          • Gezza

             /  April 10, 2018

            Leave it with me, Robert. I’ll see who I can find. 👍🏼

            • robertguyton

               /  April 10, 2018

              Any luck? Blazer’s a contender…just sayin’

            • Gezza

               /  April 10, 2018

              Not yet. Possibly Kitty. I might have to just do the job myself. So behave until I get back to you.

            • robertguyton

               /  April 10, 2018

              Kitty?
              Nah.
              Flibbertigibbet.

            • Gezza

               /  April 10, 2018

              Takes one to know one Robert.
              I’ll have to do it myself.

      • sorethumb

         /  April 10, 2018

        DAMASCUS (Reuters) – Ibrahim Issa, a jovial Syrian taxi-driver who wears a blue robe over an ample belly, has nine children from two wives. He plans to marry a third wife soon.
        https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-population/syria-grapples-with-surging-population-idUSTRE6522FS20100603
        It’s the capitalists fault!

      • David

         /  April 10, 2018

        “It’s not “people” Ray, it’s what they/we do that degrades the World. ”

        How do you solve that one Robert? Force them to behave differently?

        • robertguyton

           /  April 10, 2018

          “Force”, David?
          You’re so draconian!
          Human behaviour must change if we are to flourish long-term. Bringing about that change in behaviour is the trick but I don’t support your “force” idea at all.

          • David

             /  April 10, 2018

            ““Force”, David?
            You’re so draconian!”

            I’m afraid I’m am not at all draconian.

            “Human behaviour must change if we are to flourish long-term. Bringing about that change in behaviour is the trick but I don’t support your “force” idea at all.”

            The first sentence can only result in ‘force’. You have said it MUST change, yet, we are all perfectly well aware it will not change to a point you want naturally. That can only result in you using force to get the change you want.

            There are dozens and dozens of examples of what happens when you have this belief, venezuela being the most recent. It is your idea of social justice and force that is intrinsically linked. That is why you are so excited by power, you need it to force people into the behavior you want.

            • robertguyton

               /  April 10, 2018

              “That can only result in you using force to get the change you want.”
              Nonsense. Your world-view is so constricted that you can’t even imagine another way. You’re sticking with your original idea and building on it, cementing your draconian idea in. Sad.

            • David

               /  April 10, 2018

              “Nonsense. Your world-view is so constricted that you can’t even imagine another way. ”

              Nothing constricted about it, I understand your ‘way’. I simply believe you are profoundly wrong.

              “You’re sticking with your original idea and building on it, cementing your draconian idea in.”

              You can live your life your own way. I do not need to change that, the capitalist system is perfectly happy with people living as they wish.

              The problem is you want me, and many others, to live your way as well. You will not achieve this without force. Force is inherent in your ambitions.

          • robertguyton

             /  April 10, 2018

            David
            You “understand” my way?
            No
            you
            don’t.
            Goddit?

    • Blazer

       /  April 10, 2018

      not your best work Ray…comprehension.Btw as you know Bolger has about 9 children and Bill English 1/2 a dozen.

      • David

         /  April 10, 2018

        Neither of those people believe it is people killing the planet.

        • Blazer

           /  April 10, 2018

          Btw…means ‘by the way’.

        • robertguyton

           /  April 10, 2018

          “Neither of those people believe it is people killing the planet.”
          Really? You have some evidence for your claim?
          Bet you don’t.

          • David

             /  April 10, 2018

            You want me to prove a negative? Show me any comment by those people that they believe over-population is killing the planet.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  April 10, 2018

              Draconian is a totally inappropriate word to use in this context. It is is danger of being badly weakened and becoming meaningless.

            • robertguyton

               /  April 10, 2018

              You
              made
              the
              claim.

            • robertguyton

               /  April 10, 2018

              Kitty. Myob.

        • Griff

           /  April 10, 2018

  3. sorethumb

     /  April 10, 2018

    SJW tend to the view that population isn’t a problem. That way they can envision a solution for everyone.
    Biology teaches that population increases until acted on by an external mechanism, to which they respond with “educating women will……..”
    If so why are Maori and PI requiring extra large state houses (what is RG’S opinion on that?).

    Richard Heinberg sees the economy as a subset of the earth’s ecosystem – which implies limits to growth.

  4. sorethumb

     /  April 10, 2018

    Over consumption in the West is often touted as a solution to overpopulation. Hard to know exactly what that implies: do I wrap my left-overs up, put them in the fridge and send them by Air NZ to ……?

    • Gezza

       /  April 10, 2018

      Good idea. They could throw away the leftovers & sell the fridge for food.
      How are you going to get on without the fridge?

  5. sorethumb

     /  April 10, 2018

  6. Zedd

     /  April 10, 2018

    All this talk about the Greens.. splitting their Enviro. policies from Social Justice is just an attempt by the ‘Blue-Greens’ (if there really is such a beast) to get the greens on side.. & make friends; perhaps form a coalition ? “BUT; Hey B-Gs.. it aint F-ing likely” you cant talk about ‘saving the environment’ whilst you are tearing up the planet & dredging up the sea-floor in an everlasting search for more wealth/resources !
    Until you learn what ‘Sustainable’ actually means…… folks 😦

  7. duperez

     /  April 10, 2018

    I’ve been on the planet long enough to know that for some people the only important link to do with the environment and social justice, is to how they are linked to some solid black, right there and now so you can touch it, bottom line.

    If it can’t be measured specifically, totally, objectively in dollars and cents, it’s unimportant and irrelevant to them.

    • Gezza

       /  April 10, 2018

      Which planet are you originally from, what do you think of ours, & how much longer will you be visting for? 😳

      • duperez

         /  April 10, 2018

        I’m reasonably sure how I got here. Until I leave I’ll always think that those who consider that money is not just the most important thing about being here, but virtually the only important thing, have some sort of sad defect. The world through their Scrooge McDuck dollar sign lenses is a distorted virtual reality they have to carry for their visit. 🐂

  8. alloytoo

     /  April 10, 2018

    In order to protect the environment you need to give it a value to people beyond a full belly and shelter.

    That’s why environmental protection works better in wealthy country, that’s why parties like the greens only exist in wealthy countries

  9. sorethumb

     /  April 10, 2018

    In her increasingly rare spare time, Ghahraman likes to travel [?by bicycle?] with her
    partner, comedian Guy Williams. She also likes to host dinner parties,
    despite confessing to being a bad cook.
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11898165

  10. david in aus

     /  April 10, 2018

    “Caring for the environment is a luxury of the rich; when you are poor, you only care about food in your stomachs”, a paraphrased quote from a North Korean defector. That interview stayed with me because it was so profound. He was describing the denuded forests of North Korea where people cut down any wood for fire because they were cold and starving.

    Ask the poor of China 30 years ago, now, if the economic reforms which raised their living standards and life-expectancy were worth the environmental damage. There isn’t a straight link between “social justice” and caring for the environment as case-studies of developing countries bear out.

    But the observation that ‘caring-for-the-environment’ is a luxury of the rich perfectly describes the Greens: Chardonary-Socialists.

    • Blazer

       /  April 10, 2018

      ‘Ask the poor of China 30 years ago, now, if the economic reforms which raised their living standards and life-expectancy were worth the environmental damage’…..great advances DIA…workers now have ..safety nets to deter…suicides…
      https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/664296/secretive-iPhone-factory-safety-nets-stop-suicides-Apple-Petagron

      • david in aus

         /  April 10, 2018

        Again, Blazer, you go on tangents. It is the middle-class that care about the environment. They have time and resources to worry about it.
        It is good now that China is cleaning up its horrible air/water and soil quality and banning the imports of recycling. China is wealthy enough to care about now.

        e360.yale.edu/features/china_at_crossroads_balancing_the_economy_and_environment

        But there is little to no link between “social-justice’ and environmentalism.

        The strongest link between “social justice” and the environment is only found in left-wing parties in wealthy western countries. Everywhere else, they are considerations but they are not linked. How do you justify dams for electricity to increase growth and lift people out of poverty under the Greens ideology these days?

        • Blazer

           /  April 10, 2018

          workers rejecting this marvel of economic progress jump out of apartments to kill themselves…and that is a…’tangent’!

          • david in aus

             /  April 10, 2018

            Jumping out of windows/suicide reflects mental illness; either that or servitude.
            Let us not conflate all social maladies to Communism-with-Chinese Characteristics.

        • Blazer

           /  April 10, 2018

          when’s NZ going to follow suit?-‘It is good now that China is cleaning up its horrible air/water and soil quality and banning the imports of recycling. China is wealthy enough to care about now.’.

          • david in aus

             /  April 10, 2018

            Mountains and Molehills.

            More developed countries than China have better environments. Economic development does not necessarily mean poor environments. India has the worst air pollution at the moment, they are still poor.

            • Blazer

               /  April 10, 2018

              which is the mountain and which is the…molehill?

          • Griff

             /  April 10, 2018

            Quantifying our Faustian bargain with fossil fuels
            Our Faustian bargain: the byproduct of burning dirty
            fossil fuels are short-lived atmospheric aerosols
            which provide temporary cooling
            by David Spratt

            The climate system will heat well past 1.5 degrees Celsius (°C) and perhaps up to 2°C without any further fossil fuel emissions. That’s the conclusion to be drawn from new research which should also help demystify the rhetoric from the 2015 Paris climate talks of keeping warming to below 1.5°C .

            It’s not that 1.5°C isn’t dangerous: in fact, at just 1–1.1°C of warming to date, climate change is already dangerous. A safe climate would be well below the present level of warming, unless you think it is OK to destroy the Arctic ecosystem, tip West West Antarctic glaciers into a self-accelerating melt, and lose the world’s coral reefs, just for starters.

            The new research quantifies the effect of losing the very temporary planetary cooling provided by atmospheric aerosols.
            Aerosols (including black-carbon soot, organic carbon, sulphates and nitrates and dust) are very short-lived particles in the atmosphere that have a cooling impact that lasts around a week. Most of these aerosols are anthropogenic, that is produced by human activity, and most of the anthropogenic aerosols are a byproduct of the extraction and burning of fossil fuels. Perhaps best known are the polluting sulphates and nitrates from coal-fired power stations, that combine with water molecules in the atmosphere to produce what is popularly known as “acid rain”.

            The problem is our “Faustian bargain”: these aerosols are keeping the planet cooler than it would otherwise be, but are coming from burning fossil fuels that pour carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere, heating the planet for centuries to come. The absolutely essential moves to eliminate fossil fuel emissions will also cut the cooling aerosol impact; the net effect will push the planet towards very dangerous warming conditions.

            The big question is how much would that warming be?

            A number of scientists have estimated the figure at around 0.5°C. Writing in the Huffington Post in late 2015, Prof. Michael E Mann noted:

            While greenhouse warming would abate, the cessation of coal burning… would mean a disappearance of the reflective sulphate pollutants (aerosols) produced from the dirty burning of coal. These pollutants have a regional cooling effect that has offset a substantial fraction of greenhouse warming, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere. That cooling would soon disappear, adding about 0.5°C to the net warming… So evidently, we don’t have one-third of our total carbon budget left to expend, as implied by the IPCC analysis. We’ve already expended the vast majority of the budget for remaining under 2°C. And what about 1.5°C stabilization? We’re already overdrawn.

            http://www.climatecodered.org/2018/02/quantifying-our-faustian-bargain-with.html

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 11, 2018
            • Griff

               /  April 11, 2018

              You link to wuwt You are just confirming how idiotic you are.
              I did point out the sort of dribble you can find there every day.

              Like this one.
              A troubling omission of condemnation by NASA’s Dr. Gavin Schmidt

              Oh dear
              You really think Gavin has time to rebut every climate change denying nutwack on twitter.
              Read the nutters owains twitter feed..
              He is on the WUWT side.
              Maybe Watts will start rebuting the nonsense posted on his site daily .

              I see there is a another attack on the climate data network .
              Did not WUWT spend thousands of hours looking into that ?
              Come to think of it back in 2012 Watts promised to publish a paper that was going to prove urban heat island was skewing the record.
              Untill someone pointed out that what they actually proved was that the climate network is reliable and the paper sunk without trace.
              https://skepticalscience.com/watts_new_paper_critique.html

              How is the “pause” going Alan
              You know the one that WUWT pushed that proved global warming has stopped .
              The meme some idiots posted all over blogs and newspapers even here.
              (not mentioning any names)rofl you know who….
              Oh that’s right it was yet more stupidity for gullible nutters with no clue as to basic physics .

              How the hell to you sustain being sucked in by a webshite proven so wrong Alan ?
              Cognitive dissonance must seep in to your brain when you review the sort of nonsense you have repeated in the past from such sources.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  April 11, 2018

              Squirrel

        • PartisanZ

           /  April 10, 2018

          @david in aus – “It is the middle-class that care about the environment. They have time and resources to worry about it.”

          This argument would stand up if it wasn’t for one factor … Which turns out to be quite a big factor … Globalization …

          Poor or ‘Third World’ countries or ’emerging economies’ lack of care about their environments is largely driven by Western middle-class consumer demand … rapid industrialization and trade liberalization … along with Western corporate-capitalist and political elite pressure …

          The middle-class, therefore, do not care about the environment after all …

          “I vividly remember my ‘light-bulb moment’ back when I first took up trade activism in the 1990s … provoked by a history book, ‘Kicking Away the Ladder’ by Korean economist Ha-Joon Chang.

          He showed that the policies of rapid liberalization that rich countries were then trying to force on poor ones were the exact opposite of the policies they themselves had used during their own take-offs. Rich countries used protection to build up their industries … now they were trying to force poor countries to liberalize straight away.”

          – Duncan Green, ‘How Change Happens’.

  11. PartisanZ

     /  April 10, 2018

    Why don’t you just say: I don’t like the Greens. They threaten my world-view?

    Arguing that sustainability equals ‘socialism’ is patently absurd beyond ridiculous. It’s like saying a tricycle is a bicycle because its a cycle …

    Neither the global nor the Aotearoa NZ Green Party Charter say anything about ‘socialism’. The local Charter says “the key to social responsibility is the just distribution of social and natural resources, both locally and globally.”

    Social responsibility does not equal ‘socialism’. A bicycle isn’t a unicycle.

    Social Justice does not equal socialism. Social justice is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice

    Plenty of the world’s great philosopher-economists have advocated a Universal Basic Income or Social Dividend, among them Henry George and John Stuart Mill.

    George also advocated a Land Value Tax to reduce or eliminate income, trade or purchase taxes. What a fabulous idea!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

    These people weren’t ‘socialists’ like the long dead socialists you still live in abject terror of and constantly cite as systems justification and absolution for your total change-intransigence – the Totalitarian Socialists or Communists and the National Socialists or Nazis.

  1. How ‘intrinsically linked’ is the environment and social justice? — Your NZ – NZ Conservative Coalition
  2. Swarbrick emphasises Green ‘holistic pillars’, but… | Your NZ