Climate change linked by Greens to inequality, power, corporations

It’s common to see Greens link climate change and environmental issues with a major reform of the world’s financial and business systems.

They don’t seem to recognise the good that large companies, big money and corporations have done for the world. They have also inflicted significant problems. But is a war on big business the best way to combat climate change?

One of the ways of dealing with climate issues is to develop alternatives. Socialist style governments are unlikely to lead the way or succeed there.

The motives of the Greens are admirable, but the means with which they want to achieve major change is, at best, a huge experiment that is certain to be difficult to achieve smoothly if at all.

 

Leave a comment

40 Comments

  1. Ray

     /  December 23, 2018

    Mad as cut snakes, the Greens true message is a pox on capitalism, ban big business, and turn the survivors back to the prefarming Stone Age, with them very definitely in charge!
    Judge them by their actions so far.

    Reply
  2. Pink David

     /  December 23, 2018

    “They don’t seem to recognise the good that large companies, big money and corporations have done for the world.”

    They absolutely recognise this. That’s why they put so much effort into fighting them.

    They are not going to sell flax weaving to the masses when they can see a prosperous life elsewhere.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  December 23, 2018

      ‘They don’t seem to recognise the good that large companies, big money and corporations have done for the world.”

      do tell.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  December 23, 2018

        What are you writing this on and how much did it cost in comparison with what it would have a few years ago ?

        Reply
  3. NOEL

     /  December 23, 2018

    I know I’m repeating myself but when the ETS was first mooted the principle was that instead of closing down plants with emissions they could not economically mitigate and kicking the workers out of a job they could buy into carbon sinks to compensate.
    Since then large companies just pass on the cost, medium to small companies don’t have to register and they only people who are paying is the consumer every time they fill up the car, go to the dump etc etc.
    I’m not going to contribute any further if the populations of Russia, USA, China and other major polluters don’t give a toss.

    Reply
    • Griff.

       /  December 23, 2018

      I’m not going to contribute any further
      You have a choice son .
      You can fuck off somewhere else or pay.
      China USA* and all of Europe will make you contribute something if not now very soon.
      You will not be missed.. good luck in your backward shite hole …..

      *https://www.carbontax.org/polls/

      Reply
      • Pink David

         /  December 23, 2018

        “You can fuck off somewhere else or pay.”

        There is of course a third option here.

        Reply
        • Griff.

           /  December 23, 2018

          Yes you could die .
          National backs the ETS.
          There is no valid political party that does not in this country.
          Even ACT has walked back from its cliamte change denial now all the nutters have left. Any fringe party that picks up denial would be to toxic to be able to form a collation agreement and attain power.
          Suck it up .

          Reply
          • Pink David

             /  December 23, 2018

            So blind….

            Reply
            • Griff.

               /  December 23, 2018

              Do explain son .
              What you can not .
              How unusual.//sarc//
              A right winger without a clue.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  December 23, 2018

            The issue is not denial but what to do and why.

            Reply
            • Griff.

               /  December 23, 2018

              Yes Alan
              Tell us about that god addled whacko you think is an expert again.
              opps thats right.
              Dr Roy Spencer is among the <3% who deny climate change but as his ideology aligns with yours you deny by insisting he is a respected expert.

              I have said it before many times .
              Atmospheric physics doesn't take any notice of your ideology
              Doing nothing will result in growing calls to do something .
              Fail to engage and you righties leave the court to the left.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 23, 2018

              Spencer doesn’t deny climate change and neither do I as you have been told many times but you continue to rant which is simply boring and irrelevant.

            • Griff.

               /  December 23, 2018

              Spencer and Christy each authored five papers captured in our climate science literature survey. Among those papers, we classified one of Spencer’s and two of Christy’s as minimizing or rejecting the human influence on global warming, and the others as not taking a position on the issue.

              That makes both of them authors of the less than 3% of peer-reviewed climate science papers rejecting the consensus on human-caused global warming. This is an indisputable fact – the 97% consensus figure is based on our team’s categorization of the scientific literature, and we put their research outside the 97% consensus. Spencer and Christy reject this fact because they don’t understand our study – specifically that papers minimizing the human influence on global warming fall outside the 97% consensus. Their research is nevertheless among the 3% of outliers.

              https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Roy_Spencer.htm

            • Pink David

               /  December 23, 2018

              Consensus is a requirement of religion, not science.

            • Gezza

               /  December 23, 2018

              Sounds pithy but it’s not correct.

            • Griff.

               /  December 23, 2018

              Its not a requirement it is a natural result of overwhelming evidence persuading the scientific community.
              It is a measure of how far to the fringe whackos in denial are.

              As to the religion dribbling.
              Thats your usual wingnut physiological projection.
              Science works on evidence.
              Denial is the faith that science is wrong despite the evidence .

              Every major scientific body on the planet is part of the consensus
              that makes you lot antiscience nut bars.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 23, 2018

              Don’t keep repesting that b.s. Griff. The statements most of the professional groups have signed up to are so vague and bland that most sceptics could sign them too. And the vast majority of those signing would have no more expertise in climate science than you or I. (Probably less.)

            • Griff.

               /  December 23, 2018

              That is just as easy debunked as your statement about dr Woy Spencer Phd Alan .
              I could full pagers pointing out that most major scientific body’s directly endorse the IPCC position.
              As do the 192 governments who signed up to Paris agreement.
              You are right it is the experts that count .
              All 97% of them.
              The contrary three percent of mostly Fossil fuel funded shrills that dont agree can not even agree among themselves .

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  December 23, 2018

              I have no interest in your repetitive, silly and abusive talking points, Griff. They do you no credit.

  4. Ben Waimata

     /  December 23, 2018

    Ironically, if Green Party policies were implemented the first people to go broke would be organic farmers like me, despite the fact that I’m doing the stuff they say they want (half the farm in trees, no/limited cultivation, no soluble fertilisers etc). No farmer with any brains would enter forests into ETS, and so the only possible future mitigation methods (GE pastures/vaccines etc) are banned under organic rules.

    When the new climate change practices are implemented, I hope the newly emancipated poor enjoy their new lives free from meat and dairy, and from state-supported welfare, health or education systems. At least the obesity epidemic will disappear.

    Reply
  5. A Moore

     /  December 23, 2018

    Climate change is an abstract ideal to most people. It gets real is when your house is flooded or burned to the ground due to climate change. It gets real when coastal areas become flooded due to the rising sea level from climate change. Climate change is a fact regardless of what other nations do. Sadly its not us who will pay the full price of climate change but our kids and theirs. So whats more important to you? a future for your children or saving a buck on gas?

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  December 23, 2018

      In short according to your own criteria it hasn’t got real yet. We have no idea what the “real price” will be in 2100 but we can be pretty sure that the state of knowledge and technical resources will be very far advanced from our current position. Therefore our children and grandchildren will be far better equipped to deal with whatever problems the climate throws up than we are now. We should focus on dealing with present and immediate problems as best we can and leave future generations to assess and deal with theirs.

      Reply
  6. alloytoo

     /  December 23, 2018

    Communism is dead, I really wish the Greens would stop exhuming the rotting stinking corpse.

    Reply
  7. The Consultant

     /  December 23, 2018

    Well let’s go through the list of countries that have tried to distribute power and wealth equally.
    1. Venezeula’s only been at it for twenty years, the data only goes up to 2010, and they appear to have done much better since then:

    2. Cuba’s been at since 1960, but no evidence of much change there, aside from a bit of a drop in the early 1990’s.

    3. North Korea. Alright! This is what Marama Davison and the Greens are aiming for in NZ, although it should be noted that they still haven’t hit zero.

    Reply
    • Pink David

       /  December 23, 2018

      Pol Pot took Cambodia to 0.01 tons/per person/per year. He was, by far, the highest achiever.

      Reply
    • Blazer

       /  December 23, 2018

      don’t know wether you’re dumb or just plain stupid…one or the other..to the victor the spoils..U.S hegemony and their military might and sanctions are the main factors…not ideological paradigms.=might is right..wake up..stupid.

      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