A Zero Carbon act was supposed to be in force this month, but a draft bill hasn’t even been presented to Parliament yet.
This was the number one item in the Labour-Green confidence and supply agreement:
Sustainable Economy
- Adopt and make progress towards the goal of a Net Zero Emissions Economy by 2050,
with a particular focus on policy development and initiatives in transport and urban form,
energy and primary industries in accordance with milestones to be set by an independent
Climate Commission and with a focus on establishing Just Transitions for exposed regions
and industries.a. Introduce a Zero Carbon Act and establish an independent Climate Commission
b. All new legislation will have a climate impact assessment analysis.
c. A comprehensive set of environmental, social and economic sustainability indicators will be developed.
d. A new cross-agency climate change board of public sector CEOs will be established.
So an April introduction of the bill is now ‘mid-2019’.
There has been speculation that the Zero Carbon Bill may be progressed as a quid pro quo for NZ First stopping any CGT. James Shaw has denied this – see James Shaw on “do we deserve to be re-elected if we don’t?” – but as Shaw seems to have been shut out of discussions over the CGT he may not know what Ardern and Peters may have agreed on.
Zedd
/ 22nd April 2019I welcomed this MMP Govt., at first (after 9 looong years) but as time goes on.. perhaps it looks less attractive; esp. for Greens ??
Duker
/ 22nd April 2019Thats because Greens are not part of the Coalition. Simple reality . They are just support partners along for the ride . ACT found out the same thing applied to them after 2008, at last a chance to come near the levers of power and all that stuff they believed in about small government. Fat chance of it happening and it broke the party in two as Key- English-Joyce became more Keynesian than Keynes.
Zero Carbon is high faluting nonsense anyway which appeals to well off left leaning voters – a minority, mostly in occupations that dont make or sell stuff.
Gareth Morgan or James Shaw are prime examples – financial services and ‘ecology services’ respectively.
Kitty Catkin
/ 22nd April 2019Gareth Morgan’s idea of a contribution was to sell his huge petrol-drinking car and buy a smaller one, so someone else could have the guilt of driving the big one.
Zedd
/ 22nd April 2019@Duker
sounds like being a C&S partner to Lab-NZF coalition, has to be better than in opposition.. BUT without them, this MMP Govt. will collapse; something all three parties need to remember.
Im guessing that even NZF dont really want to ‘go with Natl’ or be back in opposition either ?
😀
Dennis Horne
/ 22nd April 2019Richard Attenborough’s video was shown on BBC Thursday night. May not last on youtube.
Climate Change – The Facts
also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ypaUH57MO4
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/climate_denier
Definition of climate denier in English:
A person who rejects the proposition that climate change caused by human activity is occurring.
Max Planck: Science advances one funeral at a time.
Alan Wilkinson
/ 22nd April 2019Definition of an idiot: someone impervious to facts and common sense.
As has Dennis has been told many times, most climate sceptics are not deniers according to that definition. Like Blazer that basic information will make absolutely no difference to his future “thinking” and comments.
Kitty Catkin
/ 22nd April 2019There is also the stupid assumption that people are denying that climate change happens; I have been accused of this here and abused for it, despite the fact that I have never said it or thought it. But to the pigheaded, this is a bagatelle.
What many people think is that as climate change has happened many times before, there is a limit to what people can do to stop it. This doesn’t mean that those of us who think that don’t think that recycling and reducing waste and pollution are not good things in their own right.
I do find it odd that Eugenie Sage sees a shopkeeper who gives out a plastic bag as a criminal who can be fined FIVE TIMES what a careless driver causing death can be fined.
To me, killing someone is a worse crime than using a plastic bag, especially as the polyprop substitutes are also plastic.
Alan Wilkinson
/ 22nd April 2019The plastic bag ban is the ultimate posturing insanity you would hope but the Left are so stupid it probably isn’t.
Kitty Catkin
/ 22nd April 2019I don’t use plastic bags with gay abandon; I use and reuse them and make them earn their keep. I use breadbags in the supermarket and so on. I don’t know anyone who doesn’t reuse plastic bags.
Try keeping things dry in a paper or polyprop bag. I had one of the new polyprop bags; it was so badly made that the seams fell apart immediately because the maker hadn’t finished them off by sewing back at the ends. Another one split for no obvious reason. They were flimsier than plastic bags !!!
It annoys me that Ms Sage seems not to worry too much about the massive amount of disposable plastic that is still for sale, things like plates made from plastic that can’t be recycled. Who has ever seen these go anywhere but into a rubbish bag?
Alan Wilkinson
/ 22nd April 2019Yep, pack of idiots I curse daily. The bags only go in the rubbish when they are dirty or broken.
Kitty Catkin
/ 22nd April 2019I use one in the kitchen bin and keep taking it out to the big bin with a black sack in it and emptying it into it. When there were the soft plastic recycling bins, I’d wash the bin bag when it split and put it in one of those.
But even if they eventually go into landfill, they squash down into a tiny space. Unlike other plastic things like the tat that’s sold for St Patrick’s Day and other occasions. Or the various other tat that is still sold unchecked.
Griff.
/ 22nd April 2019Alan,
Your hero Dr Roy Spencer PhD is a member of the 3% on the fringe of climate science .
That makes him either a crank or a denier .
Or in his case both, .
Your pleading that the fringe are not deniers is merely you trying to convince your self your views more mainstream rather than the flat earth level of loony they really are.
Alan Wilkinson
/ 22nd April 2019No, I’m simply pointing out the stupidity of most of Dennis’s comments.
And likewise your and his ad hominems.
Kitty Catkin
/ 22nd April 2019Saying that someone is a denier is meaningless unless you tell what they are denying.. Or, in the case of climate change, what sort of climate change or aspect of it is meant.
Duker
/ 22nd April 2019Science isn’t a democracy. The majority doesn’t win by numbers alone
Having computer software that uses probability and turns it into prophecy isn’t science either.
Nor is referring to discrete weather events as climate.
Dennis Horne
/ 22nd April 2019A PhD chemist who believes he knows more science than the American Chemical Society, and for that matter the American Physical Society, National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society etc etc etc, all of which endorse the science and the consensus, is suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Human activity accounts for ALL the present warming.
We now face a climate crisis. Business-as-usual burning of fossil fuels will cause the collapse of Western Civilisation. Our descendants will not be able to adjust to an increase of 3-6C by 2100.
Alan Wilkinson
/ 22nd April 2019You’ll be dead by then, Dennis, and science will have advanced.
Kitty Catkin
/ 22nd April 2019What caused it before, Dennis ? What caused the ice ages and the ends of these ice ages ?
Dennis Horne
/ 22nd April 2019Informed scientists will tell you it’s Milankovitch cycles, and Earth should be (and was) cooling before human activity caused it to warm rapidly — by increasing the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. In particular CO2 has increased 45%, from 280 to 412ppm.
Kitty Catkin
/ 23rd April 2019Why was there such arctic weather in the c.19 with the Thames freezing over ?
Kitty Catkin
/ 22nd April 2019I wonder if Labour are getting cold feet on this after the CGT bellyflop.
alloytoo
/ 22nd April 2019If we want to reduce carbon emissions on a global scale we should start building nuclear power stations.
It’s the only sensible course of action and as as added bonus works in a potential ice age.
Kimbo
/ 22nd April 2019Same applies to utilising GE to solve the food and medical issues arising from climate change. Including an ice age.
But at the moment, almost as much as nuclear power, that is off the table for NZ. On account of ideological dogma.
Dennis Horne
/ 22nd April 2019Abundant wind and solar available right now using current technology — so long before a nuclear (fission) power station ever came off the drawing board. Also much cheaper leaving no residual radioactive waste. Note nuclear is not considered renewable and fission is always 25 years away..
Duker
/ 22nd April 2019Not abundant solar…once the sun goes down.
Wind energy has the problem that only 25% of capacity is usable output over a year.
That’s not abundant.
By comparison a baseload coal fired power station has over 80% useable output over a year
I dread to think how low solar power is
Griff.
/ 22nd April 2019Nuclear ?
Beside the fact we live in one the the most Tectonically Active places in the world…..
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/
Duker
/ 22nd April 2019What does that even mean? Levelised cost? What are solar people going to use when they get home after dark ….in winter when daylight is shorter and sun is low in sky by 3:30
Dennis Horne
/ 22nd April 2019WRONG. Abundant wind and solar available right now using current technology — so long before a nuclear (fission) power station ever came off the drawing board. Also much cheaper leaving no residual radioactive waste. Note nuclear is not considered renewable and fission is always 25 years away.
Combined with pumped hydro with some batteries and a smart grid we could do it.
Dennis Horne
/ 22nd April 2019Psychology and global warming: why we can’t seem to prevent the coming disaster (revised 2016)
Jerry Kroth. Published on Nov 17, 2015 (revised 2016)
Prof. Jerry Kroth outlines the huge level of denial about global warming that exists in American culture. Corporate media propaganda, from Glenn Beck to Michael Savage, has so savaged American public consciousness that close to 30 percent of Americans now believe global warming to be a hoax or a liberal conspiracy. (Only 2 % of Canadians shares these beliefs). There is still hope and still time that we could mitigate what is coming, but the remedies are far more radical than anything we have supposed, and success is not likely in view of the present level of propaganda wafting across our airways.
Corky
/ 22nd April 2019Thorium nuclear power is always an option. Wind and solar will never be able to supply our energy needs. Cold Fusion and Zero point energy are the future of mankind’s energy needs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12416932-700-science-where-does-the-zero-point-energy-came-from/
Dennis Horne
/ 22nd April 2019Wind and solar could easily supply all our needs; nuclear generation is simply not necessary, desirable or cost-effective. Hinkley Point C in the UK is financially a flop and behind schedule; neither of other stations are not proceeding.
Corky
/ 22nd April 2019If you are paying I don’t mind. If I am paying I do mind. Solar and wind are like public transport..they need to be heavily subsidised. Similar to electric cars at the moment.
Corky
/ 22nd April 2019”Yes, wind is free. But the process of turning sunlight and wind into usable energy on a mass scale is far from free. In fact, compared to the other sources of energy — fossil fuels, nuclear power, and hydroelectric power, solar and wind power are very expensive”
Alan Wilkinson
/ 22nd April 2019More so when you add storage and duplication backup.
Blazer
/ 22nd April 2019Griff knocked you outta the park..Al..again.
Griff.
/ 22nd April 2019Thorium reactors?.
As yet only a few trial reactors have been run at lest thirty years away from commercial production if ever. Still has issues with waste disposal, cost, weapon proliferation and safety.
Cold fission and zero point energy = not based on any known technology or even theoretically possible with what we now know aka Corky lick lick.
Wind and solar alone…why rule out technology we already have ?
Geothermal and Hydro along with Wind and Solar plus storage can already supply our needs with technology available today and at a similar cost to the present grid.
Its not that you are an idiot thats a given.
It is that you are not alone others uptick your blatant idiocy.
‘
Corky
/ 22nd April 2019Is it true you stay up all night over Easter trying to get a glimpse of the Easter Bunny, Griff?
You are a genuine moron..one who pushes the barrow of others without understanding the subject in hand. A sucker for Climate Disaster hucksters.🙄✔
Griff.
/ 22nd April 2019Corky
/ 22nd April 2019DON’T LEAVE ME EASTER BUNNY. 😂
Griff.
/ 22nd April 2019ROFL
And you get upticks for that dribbling .
Stupidity has company.
List of Worldwide Scientific Organizations
The following are scientific organizations that hold the position that Climate Change has been caused by human action:
Academia Chilena de Ciencias, Chile
Academia das Ciencias de Lisboa, Portugal
Academia de Ciencias de la República Dominicana
Academia de Ciencias Físicas, Matemáticas y Naturales de Venezuela
Academia de Ciencias Medicas, Fisicas y Naturales de Guatemala
Academia Mexicana de Ciencias,Mexico
Academia Nacional de Ciencias de Bolivia
Academia Nacional de Ciencias del Peru
Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Académie des Sciences, France
Academies of Arts, Humanities and Sciences of Canada
Academy of Athens
Academy of Science of Mozambique
Academy of Science of South Africa
Academy of Sciences for the Developing World (TWAS)
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Academy of Sciences of Moldova
Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic
Academy of Sciences of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Academy of Scientific Research and Technology, Egypt
Academy of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, Italy
Africa Centre for Climate and Earth Systems Science
African Academy of Sciences
Albanian Academy of Sciences
Amazon Environmental Research Institute
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Anthropological Association
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of State Climatologists (AASC)
American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Fisheries Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
American Public Health Association
American Quaternary Association
American Society for Microbiology
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Civil Engineers
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Australian Academy of Science
Australian Bureau of Meteorology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Institute of Marine Science
Australian Institute of Physics
Australian Marine Sciences Association
Australian Medical Association
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Bangladesh Academy of Sciences
Botanical Society of America
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
British Antarctic Survey
Bulgarian Academy of Sciences
California Academy of Sciences
Cameroon Academy of Sciences
Canadian Association of Physicists
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Geophysical Union
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Society of Soil Science
Canadian Society of Zoologists
Caribbean Academy of Sciences views
Center for International Forestry Research
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Colombian Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) (Australia)
Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research
Croatian Academy of Arts and Sciences
Crop Science Society of America
Cuban Academy of Sciences
Delegation of the Finnish Academies of Science and Letters
Ecological Society of America
Ecological Society of Australia
Environmental Protection Agency
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
European Science Foundation
Federation of American Scientists
French Academy of Sciences
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
Geological Society of London
Georgian Academy of Sciences
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
Ghana Academy of Arts and Sciences
Indian National Science Academy
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Institute of Ecology and Environmental Management
Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology
Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, UK
InterAcademy Council
International Alliance of Research Universities
International Arctic Science Committee
International Association for Great Lakes Research
International Council for Science
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
International Research Institute for Climate and Society
International Union for Quaternary Research
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Pure and Applied Physics
Islamic World Academy of Sciences
Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities
Kenya National Academy of Sciences
Korean Academy of Science and Technology
Kosovo Academy of Sciences and Arts
l’Académie des Sciences et Techniques du Sénégal
Latin American Academy of Sciences
Latvian Academy of Sciences
Lithuanian Academy of Sciences
Madagascar National Academy of Arts, Letters, and Sciences
Mauritius Academy of Science and Technology
Montenegrin Academy of Sciences and Arts
National Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences, Argentina
National Academy of Sciences of Armenia
National Academy of Sciences of the Kyrgyz Republic
National Academy of Sciences, Sri Lanka
National Academy of Sciences, United States of America
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Geoscience Teachers
National Association of State Foresters
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Council of Engineers Australia
National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research, New Zealand
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Research Council
National Science Foundation
Natural England
Natural Environment Research Council, UK
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Network of African Science Academies
New York Academy of Sciences
Nicaraguan Academy of Sciences
Nigerian Academy of Sciences
Norwegian Academy of Sciences and Letters
Oklahoma Climatological Survey
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Pakistan Academy of Sciences
Palestine Academy for Science and Technology
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Polish Academy of Sciences
Romanian Academy
Royal Academies for Science and the Arts of Belgium
Royal Academy of Exact, Physical and Natural Sciences of Spain
Royal Astronomical Society, UK
Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters
Royal Irish Academy
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences
Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research
Royal Scientific Society of Jordan
Royal Society of Canada
Royal Society of Chemistry, UK
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Russian Academy of Sciences
Science and Technology, Australia
Science Council of Japan
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research
Scientific Committee on Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Slovak Academy of Sciences
Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Society for Ecological Restoration International
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of American Foresters
Society of Biology (UK)
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
Sudan Academy of Sciences
Sudanese National Academy of Science
Tanzania Academy of Sciences
The Wildlife Society (international)
Turkish Academy of Sciences
Uganda National Academy of Sciences
Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities
United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
Woods Hole Research Center
World Association of Zoos and Aquariums
World Federation of Public Health Associations
World Forestry Congress
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Zambia Academy of Sciences
Zimbabwe Academy of Sciences
Alan Wilkinson
/ 22nd April 2019How many hold Dennis’s view that all global warming has been caused by humans?
In fact most of them have stated my view that human activities have affected the climate and are some of the factors that do.
Griff.
/ 22nd April 2019Can you actually read Alan?
Alan Wilkinson
/ 22nd April 2019Yes, can you? That doesn’t answer my question.
Griff.
/ 22nd April 2019How many hold Dennis’s view that all global warming has been caused by humans?
How much warming by humans ?
IPCC.
Best estimate 110% of the warming since 1950 has been caused by human actions .
That is the consensus view the above institutions are supporting.
That does not rule out a contribution to the warming before 1950 it is just less certain how much and when human induced warming started.
Alan Wilkinson
/ 23rd April 2019Rubbish Griff. 110% is rubbish, starting in 1950 is rubbish and so is the claim these professional organisations agree with that. They have a more nuanced professional view, eg: ACS:
The American Chemical Society (ACS) acknowledges that climate change is real, is serious and has been influenced by anthropogenic activity.
Continuing to improve and strengthen our societies’ scientific understanding and literacy concerning all aspects of climate change is vitally important, enabling us to make informed decisions at national and international levels and helping us to lessen the future risk of climate change.
Griff.
/ 23rd April 2019Global Climate Change
ACS Position Statement
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/publicpolicies/sustainability/globalclimatechange.html
References
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) ( http://www.ipcc.ch/)
a. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
b. Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability
c. Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change
d. Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. (IPCC is 95 percent certain that humans are the main cause of current global warming.)
IPCC AR5 figure 10.5: Likely ranges (whiskers) and their mid-points (bars) for attributable warming trends over the 1951–2010 period due to greenhouse gases, other anthropogenic forcings (OA), natural forcings (NAT), combined anthropogenic forcings (ANT) and internal variability. The HadCRUT4 observations are shown in black.
YOU WERE SAYING?
Opss that right you are in denial and have no fuckin idea about how much of a fringe dwelling nutter you are when it comes to climate science .
Conspiratoor
/ 23rd April 2019“110% of the warming since 1950”
That seems a little odd to me. How is it possible to have more of something that has already occurred? Perhaps these esteemed gents want another crack at it. I’m sure Cliff will have a plausible answer
Griff.
/ 23rd April 2019Try that link again.
IPCC AR5 figure 10.5
Griff.
/ 23rd April 2019More than all the warming 110%
Human emissions of aerosols{other anthropogenic forcings (OA) }which result in cooling have masked some of the warming potential of our emissions of green house gasses (GHG).
Hence combined anthropogenic forcings (ANT) =110% of the actual Warming.
Even Some PhD’s have difficulty with this concept.
This post on real climate has a more involved explanation of the 110% .
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/08/ipcc-attribution-statements-redux-a-response-to-judith-curry/
Alan Wilkinson
/ 23rd April 2019Try not to sound like a drivelling idiot, Griff. Just because ACS links to the IPCC report doesn’t mean they agree with every speculation in it. They’ve given their position and I cited it.
Conspiratoor
/ 23rd April 2019Cheers Griff. So to a layman it would appear we are simultaneously warming and cooling the atmosphere at the same time
It would also appear from this graph there is little or no increase in GHG emissions anywhere in the world except asia. In fact in the OECD it is declining. So it is a reasonable question to ask why the contributors to this dire state of affairs aren’t being forced to clean up their act. China and India are just taking the piss surely
Griff.
/ 23rd April 2019Alan ‘they give the IPCC reports as the reference for their statement..
Such a cite means they are relying on the IPCC conclusions to inform their position.
Griff.
/ 23rd April 2019Conspiratoor
/ 23rd April 2019“Why should some one in the USA get to put more into the atmosphere than someone in china ?”
I get your point Griff but the atmosphere and the doomsday scenario don’t care how much you and I contribute compared to your average chinese peasant.
Emissions from asia are increasing at a greater rate than the developing world’s are falling. If those graphs are correct the USA could halve their emissions and it would have a negligible effect on the outcome unless the major polluters front up now instead of waiting another 10 years
Corky
/ 22nd April 2019https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming
Dennis Horne
/ 22nd April 2019Link or cite three papers published in Nature or Science that any or all have written in the field of climate science.
There are perhaps 8 million research scientists and you link to a self- selected group of people, very few of whom are doing research in any branch of science let alone climate science.
Quite simply, you don’t know what science is, how it works, or where to find it.
Corky.
/ 23rd April 2019An own goal there, Dennis. Run down the list of names silly old Griff has given. I sometimes feel guilty having to correct the likes of people like you. However, ignorance must be met and exposed.
Corky
/ 22nd April 2019Griff wouldn’t have known about Thorium if he tripped over it. Now he’s a man of knowledge.
Kitty Catkin
/ 23rd April 2019Nuclear power is unlikely to happen in NZ, I hope, whether it’s thorium or any other kind.
Dennis Horne
/ 22nd April 2019No idea what happened to the link, here it is again:
Psychology and global warming: why we can’t seem to prevent the coming disaster (revised 2016) Jerry Kroth.
Dennis Horne
/ 22nd April 2019Try again:
Dennis Horne
/ 22nd April 2019Okay. You need to click on symbol top left corner to get playlist and choose 13.
Dennis Horne
/ 22nd April 2019Very clear lecture by a top mathematician:
The Mathematics of Climate Change
Gresham College
Published on Nov 22, 2018
Climate change is controversial and the subject of huge debate. Complex climate models based on maths helps us understand. How do these models work
[Note. The forum for scientific debate is scientific publishing: peer-reviewed journals. There is no scientific debate about the reality and seriousness of man made global warming. Out of some 70,000 publishing climate scientists barely a handful disagree: Spencer, Christie, Curry, Lindzen. All have been thoroughly debunked.]