Climate change protests, & destroy Fonterra, destroy the economy?

Destroy dairy farming, destroy the economy?

Newstalk ZB: International calls for climate change

Hundreds of people joined climate action groups across Aotearoa New Zealand today, calling for bold and ambitious climate leadership in response to the Global Climate Action Summit hosted in California next week.

Interesting to see the use of ‘Aotearoa New Zealand’ in a news report.

Events in Auckland, Whanganui, Wellington, Nelson, Christchurch, Dunedin, and Invercargill, each highlighted different demands for local leaders.

Their main focus: removing the social licence of the oil, gas and coal sectors – the most carbon intensive industries.

Aucklanders gathered in The Domain, targeting the Museum’s sponsorship from coal industry partners, the Stevenson Foundation.

In Wellington, protestors called for the controversial annual Petroleum Conference to be banned from Wellington City Council-owned venues.

In Nelson, they discussed future campaigns to build a Fossil Free Nelson.

Other protests were more general:

Christchurch hosted a climate discussion and a spring fair.

Whanganui there was a soapbox for community speakers on climate change.

Invercargill and Southland communities demanded true climate action in Aotearoa.

Dunedin wasn’t mentioned in that report but it was at The Standard – A Tale of Two Protests:

A few minutes later, on the way through the Octagon, I stopped to chat with a few people who’d gathered as part of the global day of action called “Rise for Climate”, and I picked up some leaflets. When I first passed through, it was before their advertised “start” time and there was a very light smattering of something like a dozen people.

Fast forward one hour.

Coming back through the Octagon, I’d say there was maybe twenty people.

Not a well supported protest.

All white and all exuding a definate air of middle classness There was an electric car and some electric bikes and, to be honest, I immediately thought of a stall at a sales expo.

‘All white’ is a risky assumption.

Anyway, I’ve just this minute read the leaflets I gathered from the Octagon. There’s some good information within the half a dozen or so leaflets I grabbed. But some of the information is also, quite frankly, incredibly unhelpful, while a lot of it is decidedly naive. Overall, there’s too much confusing or irrelevant smash, and no timeless and simple “banner message” that might offer unity and a basis for people to built on.

Just to be clear. I’m not suggesting that everyone ought to be saying the same damned things about global warming or climate change, or that everyone ought to cleave to the same set of priorities.

But there has to be something short and sharp, something unequivocal and easy to grasp that allows people “entry”.

Until then, I suspect actions around global warming will remain somewhat “soft” – places and events where people already familiar with one another can gather to say hello – and the prospects for growing a large and broad based constituency of people, willing to stand up and proclaim that they give a shit –  well, that will remain decidedly low.

The problem with climate change activism and protest is that while many people acknowledge (and most climate scientists) acknowledge it as a significant and real problem, or potential problem, that vast majority of people see no imminent risk.

It must be hard to motivate people to protest now over things that they may or may not think might happen by the end of the century, or at some vague time in the future.

Attacking Fonterra (I don’t know where that banner was shown but it’s from NZH) is unlikely to prompt a popular uprising.

A problem for hard core climate protesters is they tend to be the more idealistic doomsayers who fail to come up with popular or practical solutions.

 

Productivity Commission – low emissions economy

James Shaw (@jamespeshaw):

Getting to net zero emissions by 2050 is achievable & starting now is our best option to seize the opportunities and make a just transition says the Productivity Commission. I thank them for their work on a pathway to NZ becoming a low emissions economy


New Zealand Productivity Commission – Low-emissions economy

Final report August 2018

Context

New Zealand is part of the international response to address the impacts of climate change and to limit the
rise in global temperature, requiring a transition of the global economy to one consistent with a low carbon
and climate resilient development pathway.

New Zealand has recently formalised its first Nationally Determined Contribution under the Paris Agreement
to reduce its emissions by 30 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. The Paris Agreement envisages all
countries taking progressively ambitious emissions reduction targets beyond 2030. Countries are invited to
formulate and communicate long-term low emission development strategies before 2020. The Government
has previously notified a target for a 50 per cent reduction in New Zealand greenhouse gas emissions from
1990 levels by 2050.

New Zealand’s domestic response to climate change is, and will be in the future, fundamentally shaped by
its position as a small, globally connected and trade-dependent country. New Zealand’s response also
needs to reflect such features as its high level of emissions from agriculture, its abundant forestry resources,
and its largely decarbonised electricity sector, as well as any future demographic changes (including
immigration).

Scope and aims

The purpose of this inquiry is identify options for how New Zealand could reduce its domestic greenhouse
gas emissions through a transition towards a lower emissions future, while at the same time continuing to
grow incomes and wellbeing.

Two broad questions should guide the inquiry.

What opportunities exist for the New Zealand economy to maximise the benefits and minimise the cost that
a transition to a lower net-emissions economy offers, while continuing to grow incomes and wellbeing?

How could New Zealand’s regulatory, technological, financial and institutional systems, processes and
practices help realise the benefits and minimise the costs and risks of a transition to a lower net emissions
economy?

Exclusions

This inquiry should not focus on the suitability of New Zealand’s current, or any future emissions reduction
target. In addition, the inquiry should not focus on the veracity of anthropogenic climate change, and should
only consider the implications of a changing climate to inform consideration of different economic pathways
along which the New Zealand economy could grow and develop.

17.3 Immediate priorities

Achieving New Zealand’s emissions reduction targets requires concerted effort and widespread change.
Among the numerous policies recommended in this report, three areas hold particular priority in
establishing the conditions needed for a successful transition. Change in these areas should be
implemented within the next two years to set the strategy on the right trajectory and avoid New Zealand
incurring unnecessary costs later in the transition.

Reform the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme and introduce biogenic methane into an
emissions pricing system

Ensuring that emissions are appropriately priced is an essential component in New Zealand’s mitigation
strategy. Emissions pricing provides a strong incentive to reduce emissions at least cost. It decentralises
decisions to invest, innovate and consume across the economy to people who have the best information
about opportunities to lower their emissions. An emissions price is also pervasive through the whole
economy – shaping resource and investment decisions across all emitting sectors and sources.

However, the current NZ ETS has a number of weaknesses. The reforms to the NZ ETS set out in Chapter 5
should be a high priority so that the scheme begins to drive behavioural change and changes in land use –
particularly greater rates of afforestation. The emissions price in the NZ ETS will need to rise significantly, so
the sooner this process begins, the more gradual the price increase can be. Also, a higher emissions price in
the NZ ETS will help to identify those emissions sources where complementary policies are required to drive
emissions reductions.

Further, while the NZ ETS should be the primary mechanism to drive reductions in long-lived gas emissions
(such as from carbon dioxide and N2O), a pricing system should also be established for biogenic CH4. This
system, either a dual-cap NZ ETS or an alternative methane quota system, will separately incentivise
emissions reductions of biogenic CH4 in recognition of its nature as a short-lived GHG.

Clear and stable climate-change policies

New Zealand lacks clear and stable climate-change policies. This lack of clarity and political agreement
about longer-term goals has weakened incentives for change and undermined confidence in existing
policies. The Government is currently developing a Zero Carbon Bill that will set a 2050 emissions target and
aims to establish the foundations and institutions needed to meet that target. The Bill should establish:

  • legislated and quantified long-term GHG emissions reduction targets;
  • a system of successive “emissions budgets” that, separately for short- and long-lived gases, translate
    long-term targets into short- to medium-term reduction goals; and
  • an independent Climate Change Commission to act as the custodian of New Zealand’s climate policy
    and long-term, climate-change objectives. The Climate Change Commission should provide objective
    analysis and advice to the Government on the scale of emissions reductions required over the short to
    medium term; progress towards meeting agreed budgets and targets; and barriers, opportunities and
    priorities, to reduce emissions.

Substantial investment in the innovation system

New Zealand’s strategy for its transition to a low-emissions economy should have a strong focus on
innovation. Government should devote significantly more resources to low-emissions innovation than the
modest and inadequate current allocation (Chapter 6). Yet, extra resources are unlikely to yield significant
discoveries to assist in reducing emissions immediately. Rather, the investment will pay off more gradually
throughout the transition. But given the long timeframes involved in bringing innovative ideas to fruition, it is
important that the significant additional resources and infrastructure needed to boost New Zealand’s
innovation system are established quickly.

17.4 Meeting the challenge

New Zealand can achieve a successful low-emissions economy, but there will be challenges. Stronger action
in the immediate future is required, as delayed action will compound the transition challenge and risks
New Zealand being left behind in technology and economic opportunities. Sixteen years ago, the
Government enacted New Zealand’s current climate-change law. Yet, New Zealand has since made virtually
no progress in reducing its emissions, in part due to the absence of political consensus around the
fundamental need for action across the entire economy.

Shifting to a low-emissions trajectory will critically depend on political leadership and fortitude. Inertia and
resistance to change can be expected. The challenge will be one of communication and conveying the
advantages and opportunities of transformational change to the population at large. But, meeting this
challenge will likely be futile without broad agreement across the political spectrum on both the need and
means to make the transition.

This report sets out the policy architecture for New Zealand to transition to a low-emissions economy, while
continuing to grow incomes and wellbeing. Implementing the recommendations in this report will set
New Zealand on the path to meeting its emissions-reduction targets. Inevitably, the journey will be long and
punctuated by change and uncertainty. Technological change, climate-change policy in other countries, and
unintended consequences stemming from mitigation policies could each conspire to slow or derail progress.
While challenging, the transition is achievable given concerted commitment and effort across government,
business, households and communities – up to and beyond 2050.


It is a lengthy report with many findings and recommendations.

Final report August 2018

 

Climate change and mental health

Climate change debates seem to threaten mental health at times, but this is a different angle, on the effects of extreme weather events related to climate change on mental health.

Ronald Fischer, from the School of Psychology at Victoria University (I think it’s still called that) has given a lecture on this.

Newsroom: What climate change could do to mental health

Heatwaves and other extreme weather events caused by climate change could have profound implications for personality traits and mental health, Ronald Fischer warned in his inaugural public lecture as a Professor of Psychology at Victoria University of Wellington.

Referencing an article published earlier this year in Scientific Reports, an online journal from the publisher of Nature, Fischer spoke about research showing that people with the same genetic make-up might have very different personalities depending on the climate where they live.

The article, based on research by Fischer, Victoria University of Wellington Master’s student Anna Lee and Dr Machteld Verzijden from Aarhus University in Denmark, says the impact on personality of genes regulating dopamine, an important neurotransmitter in the brain, is most pronounced in climatically stressful environments.

“If you are in a challenging climate and your genetic system is not as efficient in processing rewards or regulating potential challenges, then you might feel more stressed and more likely to be unwell,” said Fischer in his lecture.

“On the other hand, if you have a system that is not so well off but you live in an environment where life is very chilled out, there’s no challenge, so basically there shouldn’t be a strong effect on how you feel.”

He warned: “If you have followed the news – for example the incredible heatwaves in Europe – what kind of challenges will we see in the near future when climate becomes more extreme and we have to create more mental health services for people who might need that?”

An interesting question.

If we have more and worse ‘extreme weather events’ people will get more stressed, during those events and for some people adversely effected by things like flood and wind damage, those stresses can have longer effects.

On the other hand there is also the potential for less stress.

Driving on frosty streets, especially when trying to get to work at the time on a winter morning when frosts can be at their worst, can be quite stressful, as can the occasional snowstorm. We have had five consecutive unusually non-severe winters in Dunedin, and very few frost stress mornings.

People could also stress unnecessarily over possible future problems that don’t eventuate.

Or if are not suitably prepared and we get unexpected weather severity it could raise stress levels.

Then there’s the stress of getting your next house insurance bill that has escalated due to perceived climate change risks.

Sit comfortably, breathe gently, then debate.

Zero-carbon – as much pie in the sky as CO2 in the sky

Greens have long been big on ideal but absent on credible costings for their policies. Until now they have not had to actually cost and budget for policies. Now they are in Government the cost of their primary policy, net carbon zero by 2050, gets important.

But does anyone have any idea what it will cost?

Some called (Stuff September 2017): What a zero carbon act means for New Zealand

HOW MUCH MIGHT IT COST?

The effects of runaway climate change will damage our economy much more than taking steps to reduce emissions. By joining the Paris Agreement, we’ve already committed to being part of the global transition to net zero emissions.

The zero carbon act will require the Government to set out a fair, sustainable and cost-efficient pathway for New Zealand to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050. What will really cost is delay – delay in reducing our emissions, and in dealing with impacts of climate change that are already on our doorstep.

The longer we continue on our current path of emission growth, the more we lock in bad investments that will become stranded assets tomorrow. A smooth, well-managed transition is in New Zealand’s best interests – otherwise we’ll be forced to make a costly and abrupt transition later.

Insurers and local councils are also ringing the alarm bells that we need to get serious about adapting to climate impacts like sea level rise now. The longer we wait, the more risk and the more cost we are creating for ourselves.

That is alarmingly vague. There is no attempt whatsoever to cost the policy.

The author Leith Huffadine  reveals in the article: . “We [Generation Zero]…”. Greens credited Generation Zero for the formation of the policy.

The Spinoff (May 2018):  NZ has pledged zero carbon by 2050. How on earth can we get there?

The word ‘cost’ appears just twice in that.

Bloomberg New Energy Finance’s (BNEF) lithium-ion battery price index shows a fall from US$1,000 per kWh in 2010 to US$209 per kWh in 2017. This fantastic cost decline is a cause for celebration.

And:

Solar and wind offer a comparatively low-cost pathway to reduce emissions in most countries that currently have a high share of coal and gas-fired generation, but how we plug the gap between 95% and 100% in New Zealand isn’t obvious yet.

that was written by Briony Bennett: B.A. Political Studies, B.Sc. Physics, Mathematics, member of the Green Party, “I am for energy that is safer, cheaper and greener.”

What also isn’t obvious to me is how much extra electricity generation we will need if all our cars, trains, buses and trucks are run by battery (which need electricity to charge them). Important things like this don’t seem to have been quantified, or even estimated.

Earlier this month – Zero carbon: Policy meets science

For example, economics.

If “no further climate action is taken”, the per household national income will increase by about 55 per cent by 2050, models show.

No indication of what models show this.

If the the bill passes as roughly signalled, per household national income will increase by about 40 per cent, the same models show.

That’s a significant loss of economic activity and many have pointed out that New Zealand’s contribution to greenhouse gases is less than 2 per cent of global emissions.

Far less than 2% (actually less than 0.2%) according to New Zealand’s Environmental Indicators:

China produced 26 percent of global GHG (green house gas) emissions, nearly twice as much as the next- highest producer, the United States. New Zealand contributed 0.17 percent.

Today at Stuff: Zero-carbon economy may not be worth the cost

Before we decide if a zero-carbon economy by 2050 is worth the cost, we must know what the damage to our economy from global warming will be if we do nothing. Only then will we know how important and urgent action on global warming really is.

Estimates of the cost of global warming as a percentage of GDP to New Zealand are elusive. I drew a nil response when I asked for that information from James Shaw, the Minister for Climate Change, and from the Ministry for the Environment. Both said such an estimate was too hard to calculate.

Too hard to calculate?

Fortunately, the OECD rose to the challenge in its 2015 report on The Economic Consequences of Climate Change. The OECD estimated the cost of global warming to New Zealand and Australia between now and 2060 was a reduction of 0.9 per cent in their GDPs.

No details on that. And that doesn’t look at the cost of doing what will be required to get to zero-carbon by 2050.

James Shaw must come clean

It is time for the Government to fund an estimate of the cost of global warming to New Zealand.

Author Jim Rose (‘an economic consultant in Wellington) seems fairly negative about doing anything at all, but it’s more than fair to ask what it all could cost. there’s a lot of variables and unknowns, but surely there should be some estimates.

There are certainly risks of not doing anything, and also risks of spending a lot of money trying to do something.

I find the lack of information about possible costs quite alarming.

 

Nation: James Shaw on climate change progress

This morning on NewsHub Nation James Shaw fronts up to report progress on consultation on climate change and the net zero carbon bill.

Climate Change Minister James Shaw says the independent climate change commission will be charged with making the big decisions about what areas NZ prioritises in terms of emissions

There have been 15,000 submissions on the zero carbon bill – Shaw says it’s going to take a bit of time to go through them

Shaw not willing to make any big calls on agriculture – kicking it back to that independent commission.

Shaw said he has a goal of every vehicle being net zero emissions by 2023. Far out!

Making older higher emission vehicles more expensive? He really avoids answering this by diverting to alternatives like public transport.

80%-90% of the new vehicles purchased in NZ are company fleet vehicles. James Shaw says that’s one of the big targets in terms of transitioning to more electric vehicles.

Shaw avoided addressing that. And also – where is all the electricity going to come from for electric vehicles?

So will there be incentives to companies etc going electric? James Shaw keeping mum on that.

Shaw says the Government will be working with National on the zero carbon bill. He’s hopeful there will be bipartisan support for a way forwar.

A lot of unanswered questions on this, which is a bit alarming considering the radical changes that will be necessary to come close to achieving goals.

Can we hit 90% of our cars being electric within 30 years?! James Shaw says NZers tend to hold on to their cars for a long time. I own a 1995 Toyota Corolla.

95% of vehicles need to be zero-emission by 2050

Minister of Climate Change James Shaw has a very ambitious target for “the ground vehicle fleet” (cars, trucks, buses and trains) – he says that 95% need to be zero emission by 2050. That means electric, person powered or powered by some other zero emission fuel.

RNZ: Carbon neutral goal reliant on electric cars – Govt

If New Zealand is to meet its zero carbon pledge, nearly all the country’s cars will have to be zero-emission by 2050, Climate Change Minister James Shaw says.

Mr Shaw said achieving the country’s commitment to be carbon neutral by 2050 was reliant on significantly boosting the uptake of plug-in vehicles.

“We can’t get to the zero-emissions carbon goal without switching over the ground vehicle fleet to electrics. You just can’t get there,” he said.

“We think that means about 95 percent of vehicles in the year 2050 will be zero-emissions vehicles.”

That’s an ambitious target given the current use of electric vehicles.

As of June, roughly 8700 plug-in cars are on the road of a total fleet of more than four million.

That’s about 2%, so a long way to go.

Not only will it mean a huge increase in electric vehicles, it will also mean disposing of a large number of petrol and diesel fueled vehicles.

Associate Transport Minister Julie-Anne Genter dismissed the suggestion that was unrealistic.

“What is possible in 2030 will be far different from what we imagine being possible today.”

We simply don’t know what will be possible in 2030, or in 2050.

Not only will it need a massive change in vehicle type, and if the Greens achieve what they want a massive shift to public transport, it will require a large increase in electricity production.

Zero emissions will need to apply to vehicle manufacturing as well.

There is unlikely to be a major change to hydro capacity because flooding land is not very popular these days.

Wind and solar energy are only a part of the solution.

The target is unrealistic until the Government comes up with a viable plan.

NZ businesses dealing with climate change

As well as general political consensus on the need to do more to address climate change issues in New Zealand, there are growing moves by big businesses to do something about it.

This is likely for mixed reasons, including they have a public duty to do something about it, pragmatic business reasons, and doing something to try to reduce the chances of Government forcing them to do more.

Stuff:  Businesses band together to tackle climate change

Sixty firms that contribute almost half of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions are pledging to help the country reach its net zero emissions target by 2050.

The businesses’ chief executives have formed the Climate Leaders Coalition after talks with the Sustainable Business Council. The group includes leaders of Z, Westpac, Ngai Tahu Holdings, Vector, Air New Zealand, Spark and NZ Post.

By signing the CEO Climate Change Statement, each of the business leaders has committed to measuring and reporting their greenhouse gas emissions and working with suppliers to reduce emissions, with the aim of helping to keep global warming within two degrees, as specified in the Paris Agreement.

The businesses will individually set targets to reduce emissions and report on progress annually. Most businesses involved in the coalition are already reporting their targets to reduce emissions.

Voluntary measures may avoid more drastic regulations and taxes and other disincentives.

Z Energy chief executive Mike Bennetts, leading the collective commitment…

…said it would be up to the consumers, media and the general public to hold each business involved in the coalition accountable, for every emission reduction report they puts out.

“When it comes to emissions, customers want to know what the businesses they are shopping at are doing. It will come down to individual customers and their connection with these individual companies,” Bennetts said.

Z Energy has committed to reducing its emissions by 30 per cent by 2020 for its internal operations.

Bennetts said Z Energy sold 9.3 million tonnes of carbon to its customers but was also looking to reduce New Zealanders’ reliance on fossil fuels.

Tricky for a petrol pump company.

Fonterra global operations chief operation officer Robert Spurway…

…said the company had also pledged to 30 per cent reduction, but by 2030 from a 2015 baseline.

“At the moment there is no legal requirement for businesses to complete emission reporting. The Government is looking at this over time, as part of New Zealand’s commitment to climate change, but this accelerates that,” Spurway said.

“It gives businesses that opportunity to lead through commitment by all those businesses within the coalition to report on an annual basis. It’s a step in the right direction.”

Professor James Renwick, of the Victoria University school of geography, environment and earth sciences…

… said it was good news for climate change action in New Zealand.

“This coalition, comprising almost half of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions and including some very prominent businesses such as Fonterra and Air New Zealand, has the potential to make a significant difference. We will have to wait and see what actions the members of the CLC actually take, but the stated aim of reducing emissions to meet Paris Agreement limits is excellent”.

Professor Tim Naish, a climate scientist at the Antarctic Research Centre…

…said it was significant that the aviation, dairy and petroleum sectors were signatories.

“But just as it applies to governments that pledged in Paris, good intentions must translate into action, and time is short.”

“The science shows us that collectively if we leave it much longer this will require negative emissions and a technological solution.”

It is likely to become a mix of voluntary, incentive based and regulatory changes.

Whatever happens it is widely acknowledged there is a growing need to do something about climate change, and increasing efforts to do something from both Government and the business sector.

Contrasting climate change claims

Two very contrasting articles via real Politics on climate change – one claiming “No ice has been lost by Greenland…” and the other “the Greenland ice sheet is melting at its fastest rate in at least 400 years”.

Conrad Black at National Post – Thirty years of climate hysterics being proven wrong over and over again

It is 30 years this past week that Dr. James Hansen, then well into the first of more than three decades as head of the NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)-Goddard Institute for Space Studies, testified to a U.S. Senate committee that the then-current heat wave in Washington was caused by the relationship between “the greenhouse effect and observed warming.” This was the starting gun of a mighty debate about the existence, cause and consequences of global warming.

In his testimony, Hansen described three possible courses for the world’s climate, depending on public policy.

It is the third result that has occurred: unchanged world temperatures since 2000, apart from 2015-2016; then the temperature rose slightly after a heavy El Nino, and then receded again although world carbon emissions have increased moderately.

He gives no evidence of that claim. I’m sure someone else somewhere is saying something similar, but this is from NASA (Goddard Institute for Space Studies) in Global Temperature:

Parallel predictions were made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which forecast temperature increases twice as great as occurred in the period up to 2000, with accelerating increases in the years since, when the temperature has been flat (with the exception of the one year mentioned). Hansen also predicted exceptional warming in the Southeast and Midwest of the United States, which has not occurred either. As his predictions were battered and defied by the facts,

Hansen reinforced his expressions of ecological gloom and in 2007 predicted that all Greenland’s ice would melt and that ocean levels would rise by seven metres within 100 years.

I can’t find evidence of those claims by Hansen. In Scientific reticence and sea level rise (2007) heb talks only of estimates of possible scenarios based on the known science in 2007. he does say “The nonlinearity of the ice sheet problem makes it impossible to accurately predict the sea level change on a specific date. However, as a physicist, I find it almost
inconceivable that BAU climate change would not yield a sea level change of the order of meters on the century timescale”.

Black:

We have only had 11 years, but no ice has been lost by Greenland, other than what melts every summer and then forms again, and water levels have not moved appreciably.

In contrast from Scientific American: Greenland Is Melting Faster Than at Any Time in the Last 400 Years

study published this week in Geophysical Research Letters finds that melt rates in western Greenland have been accelerating for the last few decades. Melting is now nearly double what it was at the end of the 19th century, the research suggests. And the scientists say a significant increase in summertime temperatures—to the tune of about 1.2 degrees Celsius since the 1870s—is mainly to blame.

Future warming may only continue to enhance the melting, the researchers warn—a major concern when it comes to future sea-level rise.

The researchers used models informed with historical climate data to investigate some of the climatic factors influencing melt rates from one year to the next over the last century. Fluctuations in ocean temperatures and certain atmospheric circulation patterns were shown to have a major influence on year-to-year variations in melt rates since the 1870s.

That’s important to note, because these oceanic and atmospheric patterns may change under the influence of future climate change. Scientists are still debating how they may be affected, but the new findings suggest that a better understanding will be critical to making accurate short-term predictions about melting and sea-level rise.

The need for ongoing scientific research is obviously important. And most of the current science (as opposed to opinion of people like Black) suggests a growing problem with the effects of climate change. The biggest uncertainty is by how much and over what time period.

I got sidetracked addressing some of Black’s claims. The second article from RealClear: Clmate Change Is Our Most Critical National-Security Challenge

Progressive American politicians must embrace the necessity of dramatic action on climate change as a touchstone. So far, Senator Bernie Sanders has done it the most persuasively, campaigning on addressing climate change, health care, racial justice, and economic inequality as his unvaried quartet of issues, invoked in every speech and backed up with serious legislation that shows a willingness to move with real speed. Other party leaders will back him on one bill or another, and scientists and engineers are now runningfor office.

Seriousness on climate change needs to be a qualification, not an afterthought, for anyone who wants to run for president. Because it’s not an environmental issue; it’s the most crucial security question that humans have ever faced.

There’s a major problem with this – Sanders didn’t even make the presidential election, Trump won and is taking the US into the climate change dark ages, and progressive politics in the US is in disarray.

Hard lefties oppose National cooperation on climate change

Jacinda Ardern has described climate change as “my generation’s nuclear free moment” (in a campaign speech in August 2017).

Simon Bridges won’t go that far. On Q+A yesterday

CORIN DANN So certainty. Is climate change the nuclear-free issue of your generation?

SIMON BRIDGES I would not go that far. Is it the most significant environmental issue? Is it an important long-term issue that we need to deal with and deal with seriously and provide certainty on? Yes.

Bridges was vague about where he actually stands on a number of climate issues, and is nowhere near as radical as the Greens, but National have signalled a willingness to work together with other parties – National supporting non-partisan Climate Commission.

But how genuine are they? Not at all according to some on the left.

MickySavage asked yesterday: Does National really want climate change to be a bipartisan issue?

His post concludes:

If this is what National and Simon Bridges is promising then all good and the Government can get on with things.  But if this is merely a replacement of outright denial with a more nuanced approach designed to delay urgent action being taken then he should rethink this.

Bridges has just been reported criticising National MPs expressing doubts about climate change.

Many comments at The Standard didn’t trust National and didn’t want them involved. Petty partisan politics is so ingrained some people can’t countenance cross-party cooperation.

Gabby: “Much easier to wreck things from the inside.”

Robert Guyton: “National’s funders will say, nah.”

Jess: “Bi-partisan means two parties. National wants to regress to Nat vs Labour with Nat as the bigger party, instead of a coalition. Or if they really see Govt and opposition as two parties, their perspective is going to be no help whatsoever (no surprise there).”

Kat: “Agree with you Jess in that National just want to maneuver into a position of taking out the coalition in 2020 by appearing to be genuine about serious issues.”

marty mars: “Simon is insincere imo. The gnats don’t care. Last throw of the die in many ways.”

Stuart Munro: “Trying make a wedge to peel off a few blueish Green voters.”

Jenny: “Feeling the ground shifting under them, National’s corporate sponsors desperately need a bipartisan consensus to do nothing meaningful about climate change.”

Draco T Bastard: “Translation: He wants Labour and the Greens to compromise and accept National’s position. And National will not budge from its position.”

What I think DTB really means is that he doesn’t want Greens to budge from their position – ignoring the reality of an MMP Parliament that requires agreement (and compromise) from at least three parties.

I joined in and said: This is the best opportunity ever for cross party cooperation on dealing with a major issue facing New Zealand and the world. Getting pissy about shunning parties because they don’t measure up to ideals (non of them do) is a bit pathetic given what is at stake.

Robert Guyton:

“Moving towards doing something”
Shuffling their feet so they aren’t considered dead.
That’s all.

I queried Robert: What approach do you think is best Robert – MMP democracy, or petty partisan politics? Greens will get closest to what they want if they’re prepared to work hard with all other parties in Parliament to get the best out of all of them – kinda like the James Shaw approach.”

Robert:

James is handling this issue beautifully, in the way a snake-handler manipulates vipers. Still vipers though.

This was Shaw’s response to National’s announcement they would work with other parties ion climate change:

Fortunately commenters on left wing blogs don’t run things in Parliament, but as Eugenie Sage found out, they can kick up a stink when Ministers follow laws and procedures and allow something activists don’t like.

Wayne Mapp also joined in:

Thank goodness the commenters here are not actually in govt. Most of you would not talk to National on anything (except for terms of surrender).

In reality in a range of issues governments and oppositions co-operate. For instance on national super, various environmental issues, a number of national security isssues there is dialogue and adjustment to get a bipartisan (sometimes multi partisan) consensus.

In fact John Key’s initiative in Opposition was to do the anti-smacking deal with Labour.

But hard lefties seem to hate dealing at all with the political ‘enemy’. In response:

Stuart Munro: “Well you’re a pack of lying assholes.”

One Anonymous Bloke: Here’s a radical idea to improve your public image: stop lying and killing people.

Fortunately people like that are nowhere near real political decision making, all they have is futile vitriol in social media.

This morning on RNZ:

Q&A – Bridges on cross party climate change cooperation

This morning on Q&A: National says it wants to work with the Government on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. What does that really mean? National leader Simon Bridges will be with us live.

This could be interesting.

One National’s decision:National supporting non-partisan Climate Commission

One of the more ridiculous comments in response:

Climate change is a fraud, perpetrated on us by troughing and corrupt scientists. Not a single prediction, model or claim about the catastrophe that awaits us if we do nothing has ever come true, nor is it ever likely to. We are hobbling our economy by pandering to this nonsense.

https://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2018/06/why-simon-no-one-cares-except-liberal-elites/

Apart from stupid that is either very ignorant or deliberate bull pandering to an ignorant audience.


Overall impression is that this is a one of Bridges’ better interviews. I think he and his PR team have been doing some work to improve his public performances – they have plenty of time to prepare for QA interviews.

He was knowledgeable – and there was even signs of some passion. Perhaps he can grow into the job.

As well as climate change a lot of the interview was spent on prisons and crime – this was to Bridges’ advantage because it is something he is very familiar with – he was a lawyer and crown prosecutor before getting into politics.

On the panel, on climate change, Peter Dunne says that National had no choice to engage on climate change in Parliament.

Fran O’Sullivan says she was quite disappointed that Bridges failed to say clearly what he supported on irrigation and stocking levels – but Dunne disagrees, saying that putting bottom lines out there at this stage is not a good idea.

As soon as I saw that panel i thought of The Standard.