Tourism at risk from carbon policy?
A somewhat alarming report on NBR about the effect on tourism to NZ from Government policy. To quote:
New Zealand’s adoption of a carbon neutrality policy, and the world’s toughest emission reduction targets, will have a disastrous effect on its biggest foreign exchange earner, tourism, and there are no solutions in sight, university experts say.
… Physics researchers Dr Inga Smith and Dr Craig Rodger say their findings on the sheer size of the emissions and difficulties in offsetting them have far-reaching implications for both the tourism industry and efforts to achieve carbon neutrality.
Awareness of the environmental impact of long-haul flights is increasingly influencing tourists destination decisions. As tourism is New Zealands number one export earner, these findings are cause for some concern, Dr Rodger says.
… We investigated several domestically-based offsetting scenarios involving either increased reliance on sustainable energy sources or reducing emissions. Unfortunately, none of the scenarios currently appear to be economically or technically feasible, Dr Smith says.
For example, the installation of 4,250 one megawatt wind turbines to replace existing fossil fuel-based power generation would offset the visitors emissions, but only at a cost of at least $10 billion, or $4150 per visitor, she says.
Such a switch would be highly challenging both in cost and finding acceptable places to put them.
Helen’s aspirational goal is carbon neutrality. So the question is do we stop tourists coming to NZ (which would kill many sectors of the economy) or do we spend $10 billion offsetting it?
January 4th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Shows what a load of bollocks carbon neutrality is.
CO2 is plant food and the science is not settled despite hearing there is a consensus on GW.
Peter
January 4th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Indeed. This was on one of the current affairs programs about mid last year when there was a world tourism conference in Germany where such eco decisions formed the basis for where some tourists would go. And we were very low on the list because of the distances involved and the dangers to the environment with a plane up that high. I believe a NZ delegation was sent there as well.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Have these dickheads any idea of what CO2 is? It is the lifeblood of this planet and without it we would all starve to death and that includes you vegetarians. Oh sorry I forgot it’s not about saving humans is it, it’s about saving the planet. Silly me.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Combat the eco-facists with education.
Every tourist site should include a link to http://www.icecap.us
It’s the best site I have found so far that keeps up to date with most aspects of the climate change scam.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
What about option number three. Shifting our focus to get more long term tourists? The same as our agricultural sector has been continually been aiming at more added value, high quality product would it not make sense to apply the same model to the tourism industry.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Long term tourists is a fine idea. While they are here they can eat grass to keep their carbon footprint down, lol.
This is a real non issue made an issue by the green movement. They want to destroy our economy for a saving of about 0.05 deg C!
Peter
January 4th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
“So the question is do we stop tourists coming to NZ (which would kill many sectors of the economy) or do we spend $10 billion offsetting it?”
Neither…try having a good lie down.
Recognise it for the bullshit it is and try some adult behaviour as an option to the frantic adolescent cant being peddled by the earnest and the ideologically sound.
Again …no matter what NZ does it can have no/nil/zilch measureable effect on world atmospheric carbon.
So go ahead and destroy your tourist industry, that way you will remember what happens when airheads rule.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Money is not everything.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Luke: CO2 is good for the planet. The warmth helps plants grow, it feeds more people and warm = wet so don’t believe the idiots when they say we’re gonna run out of water, they want us to believe that so they can take control of it and charge us more for it. Cold = drought and far more deaths than warming ever will. Why do you think most councils won’t allow you to have water tanks in the town’s and cities? Cause that way the water is free. No shortage of it just not enough reasonable collection systems to store it.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Shifting our focus to get more long term tourists?
You mean change the entire focus of our tourist industry overnight
January 4th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Long term tourists are called immigrants.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Nice try at spinning this into a problem with government policy, but the facts don’t seem to support the argument.
At this point emissions from international air travel are not covered by the Kyoto protocol. One of the reasons being it is hard to figure out who the emissions should be allocated to – the origin or the destination or some other way (eg. to the country that benefits – so NZ would get the emissions of the flight to and back again). That would have to be sorted out before NZ would be required to do any offsetting.
Of course there might be other reasons to be worried about this. If tourists were put off by the increased emissions from travelling to NZ rather than, for instance, Norway, that would be a problem for our tourism industry. But its not a problem caused by government policy. If anything the goal of carbon neutrality should help by showing that NZ is committed to addressing the issue of climate change.
Or it might be a worry simply because climate change will screw up the planet if nothing is done. Hard to blame that one on the government either.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Screw up the planet? What caused the various interglacials between the ice ages? Why did the planet survive when CO 2 levels were about 7,000ppm? The last ice age ended 10,000 years ago and we are the result of it. The extra CO2 has allowed humans to flourish like never before. So you want to reduce carbon fuel, grow bio fuels and you expect them to grow with low CO2? The only reason we are growing so much bio fuel plant is the high level of CO2. The air that comes out of your mouth after breathing contains about 35,000 ppm of CO2. Are you dead yet?
January 4th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
It seems reasonable that the carbon output from air travel would be shared between the two countries involved. Some convention would be sorted out easily enough, with a country either being responsible for arrivals or departures. (The final destination of the traveller would have to be considered to accommodate stopovers etc.)
So take what was said above and halve it, at best.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
For the sake of the thread, lets have the ASSUMPTION that global warming is real, CO2 causes it, and a reduction in carbon emmissions is a good thing.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
“Money is not everything.”
Really Harry B . A classic prima facie case of socialist madness.
January 4th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Kimble:
1. Climate change is happening, not always warming.
2. CO2 does not cause all of it, water vapour has a higher warming effect.
3. Not necessiarly, the cooling effect of lower emissions is very low.
ASUMPTION (as in a Segal movie) is the mother of all fuck-ups’.
Why would say the UK help offset the flight to NZ when Europe is a hub of flights, concentrated in one area? NZ is a far flung exotic destination, hence the attraction. The present government has helped drop us in this mire with their unrealistic carbon neutral policy, watch them come out and try and negate this. Air miles was always going to be a hard sell to Europeans who are in doctrinated into GW as much as silly people in this land.
A lot more windmills is also not the answer unless you wish to pay 30-50c/kWh, a 50% penalty for carbon neutrality.
I say, keep the status quo, carbon offsets is a con as there is no overall reduction in carbon produced.
Peter
January 4th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
There’s another possibility.
DFs post is part of a Rovian plot to ensure NZs integration with Aust.
With the tourist industry destroyed to placate the mythical fire god, the export earner left is agriculture. When the national total of private incomes equals the total tax take for pretend problems…. the last option is the Aust option.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Trevor Mallard stated last week that “the science is settled”. And Trevor Mallard knows this because………………….
January 4th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
I remember writing to David Parker asking why the government supported the IPCC when one of it’s icons, the infamous Michael Mann “Hockey Stick” had been shown to be worthless. His response was that Mann’s work had been subjected to a NAS enquirey and had been cleared and that independant verification of Mann’s work had been undertaken.
Mann was found to have falsified his findings by the MAS enquirey, he still has not been prepared to release all of his algorithims used in his work ans so NO independant verifaction has ever been undertaken.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Absolutely no leadership by the Govt. They issue a feel good piece of legislation without any quantitative research into the economic effect. Can’t see Labour getting to many votes in Rotorua and Queenstown if this starts to effect tourist numbers.
I’m sure the Govt knows nothing about marketing. Its got nothing to do with fact, just perception. What till the European countries really start to wind up the “isit local or your killing the planet” adverts. Yes its complete bullshit, but a large percentage of the people who visit NZ will buy into it.
Also how did they calculate the fuel miles? Not many people would come all the way to NZ as part of a single destination trip. Did they include stopovers in Singapore/Hong Kong and other holiday destinations?
The Govt needs to put some serious money not into carbon nuetralisation, but real research to get the facts right so that our tourism people have a credible defence strategy. Multiple different reports coming out of every uni in the country doesn’t help.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Government policy on carbon neutrality/climate change is badly thought out, has been adopted without a cost/benefit calculation, and will – if implemented – render many sectors non-competitive. Tourism could be one of them. But this is nothing to do with leadership or the environment – its is all about political survival and control. The Hive had a good piece on this a week or so ago – http://wellingtonhive.blogspot.com/2007/12/rant-on-lefts-true-interest-in-climate.html
January 4th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Australia must have the same problem so perhaps Australia and New Zealand should work together to keep tourists coming down here. Of course we should work harder on getting Australians here for holidays.
I do feel New Zealand is being singled out unfairly. Because fares are so cheap Britons hop across to Europe in droves from secondary airports. How much CO2 is generated by large numbers of short haul flights? What of the masses of planes flying around the US? When other countries start biting the bullet that is when they can start criticising us. Picking on New Zealand is easy.
January 4th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
>>Trevor Mallard stated last week that “the science is settled”.
I think he meant “the violence is settled”
January 4th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Why not force long distance travelers to stop off in Sydney or Brisbane for a day, each direction. The Aussies would need to do all the offsetting except for the crossing of the Tasman.
Or, just ban tourists. Surely it is irresponsible to invite people to fly to New Zealand, drive around the country in campervans, and take boat trips on Milford Sound and the Shotover when the fate of the Earth is at stake?
Or, stop advertising New Zealand as a tourist destination and instead advertise the benefits of foreigners visiting a developing country which Kyoto allows to increase carbon dioxide without restriction. Like China, or Singapore. It’s the least that New Zealand can do to help the people of Darfur, who are dieing thanks to global warming according to the UN.
Or, stop New Zealanders taking holidays overseas. Actually, stop them leaving their own towns in cars for frivolous recreational purposes. People are going to have to make sacrifices to save polar bears from drowning. Surely asking them to stay home and watch TV for a few weeks each year isn’t too much to ask? Provided the TV is powered by windmills, of course. If not, then they can just read a book.
Or, just sacrifice a few goats on an altar. Ancient people used this tried and true method to control the weather and, therefore, harvests. It’s organic, and therefore must be good.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
of course the globe is warming, we only just came out of an ice age about 12000 years ago and we are still warming up. Not too long ago methinks. The sea level in Canterbury then was 150m below where it is now – so Brighton Beach was out past the end of Banks Peninsula! Where will it be in another 1000 years, the airport?
Climate change? Climate change? Can someone please tell me when there has been a period of Climate Stability?
January 4th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Someone said to me the other day that ships put out more CO2 than planes. Is that true?
January 4th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
“So go ahead and destroy your tourist industry, that way you will remember what happens when airheads rule.”
Maybe maybe not. The airheads were elected by (so called) democratic means. NZers willingly subject themselves to tyranny. They lie down and beg for it. They keep electing, time after time after time, politicians who desire to regulate them and tax them and constrain them and cosset them and save them from themselves, and it seems as if they will never learn.
It appears to me that NZers have grown to be a country of lame arsed government worshippers who will take anything that is dished out to them. Witness petrol prices for example. Whine whine whine. Very seldom do you ever Joe Citizen express concern at the tax component in the price of petrol. (at least 50%) What’s to deduce from that other than they they love paying that tax?
Controlling scum, ELECTED BY THE VOTES OF THE VERY PERSONS THEY ARE ATTACKING, are plotting right now to take automobile use out of the equation for the average citizen.
What’s Joe average doing about it. Sweet fuck all. In fact, most of them are so lamely pathetically politically ignorant (and kept that way by an equally lame media) they don’t even know its happening.
NZers are going to pay an immense price for sucking up this GW bullshit and other equally extravagant and unrealistic environmental issues. It would indeed be a good lesson if the country had the brains to learn it. After decades of lame willing subservient compliance with any demand issued by the parasitical bureaucratic fuckwits in Wellington, I don’t think they do any longer.
Sheep?? Fuck, this lot of miserable ignorant suckholing losers would make the average sheep look like Rambo. Shame. It wasn’t always this way.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
I read that as well. And Labour has a policy to double coastal shipping by 2040. Is rhis efficient or a pay off to the Maritime Unions?
January 4th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
My gods there are some seriously delusional conspiracy nutters commenting on this post.
Go read the science, the real science not the stuff brought to you by the same people who claim that the moon landings were faked. Climate Change is a measurable reality, Climate Change is anthroprogenic; you don’t have to be a nutter vegan greenie to understand this (in fact not being a nutter helps you understand the scientific argunments better), the science is sound and logical.
The article quoted above about CO2 emissions from Air Travel to NZ is a serious problem for the people of NZ to face. Instead of putting our fingers in our ears and ranting about it not being true or alternatively banning tourism immediately we could do the sensible thing and look into how we can address the issue in the long term. Lets use our brains before we use our mouths.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
“Climate Change is anthroprogenic;”
Not to any degree that matters. Not to any measure of cost benefit analysis. Fuck off with your propaganda.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
So let’s get this straight DPF:
Labour has no credibility when it comes to climate change and they aren’t going to do anything about it. Also, Labour’s going to destroy the economy with its stringent emissions reductions targets.
So which one is it? You can’t have it both ways.
[DPF: It is both. Their record is abysmal, but their policy target of carbon neutrality is ridicolous]
January 4th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
ha ha somefella. I think that old saying about ‘lies, damned lies and statistics’ could be applied to research – “lies, damned lies and research”.
How on earth does one distinguish between ‘good’ research and ‘bad’ research?
January 4th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
“Lets use our brains before we use our mouths.”
Getting Labour MP’s to follow this advice might be a first logical step.
No one is disputing the planet is warming. It is just the amount of bullshit from people like Al Gore that creates mis-information.
Fact = the planet is warming
Fact = planes use more gas (and therefore emissions) taking off than travelling
Up for debate = is this normal? if not what causes it? can anything NZ does make one small degree of difference
Would be interesting to add up all the little pleasure flights to Europe from the UK and how much effect these have. Aucklanders go to the CBD for a stag party or hens night. Where do people from the UK go? not London but Krakow, Prague etc and all by plane.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Anyone got an answer to when there has been a period of Climate Stability on earth?
January 4th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Mr Gnome I think they answer will be that Labour can do two things at once eg fuck the economy while publically stating they are making the world a better place and in reality doing absolutely nothing.
Sad thing is people like you blindly believe them
January 4th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
“You can’t have it both ways.”
No you can’t, but that doesn’t stop delusional and irrational leftists from trying to.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
ooooh! I call first use of the cLIEmate change label!
January 4th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I can hear the earthquake rumblings in Al Gores fat gut . Do I plant pine trees or not ? Can you wager carbon credit chips at the casino Al or put global farting brownie points on trade me Miss Klak ?
January 4th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
“Someone said to me the other day that ships put out more CO2 than planes. Is that true?”
That depends on whether you’re talking total global output, or output per unit transported. Generally speaking, trucks are around 10 times more efficient than planes, trains are around ten times more efficient than trucks, and boats are around 10 times more efficient than trains.
So if we’re talking Co2 emissions per-unit transported, plains actually put out about a thousand times more Co2 than boats.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I would have thought that if you planted trees on the plains, you could soak-up some carbon.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Oh please rogered gnomer -what about diesel trains hauling coal across the South Island polluting the atmosphere on rickety railway lines so China can play Cheech and Chong -Up in smoke – what a sick joke !!
January 4th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
“So if we’re talking Co2 emissions per-unit transported,”
What meaningless waffle. Fuck off PJ, you’re a dangerous cretin.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
A new denialist hot off the press
http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
Welcome Haby
January 4th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
it makes sense that boats are the most efficient. Make the pollies take boats everywhere – that would slow down their mad hectic regulation making addiction.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Talking about boats rogered gnomer don’t let your pet dogs drink the river water, thats if you have a local river left !!
January 4th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Who funded the report?..Why should NZ give it such publicity and shoot itself in the foot. I doubt any other country would. The Goverment funds many secret research projects why not keep this one secret…Dear Leader obviously doesn’t believe it as she is at a secret far distant destination as she is on every other break in Parliament.. The acceptability of the research can be garnered by the extent to which retired MPS excercise their outrageous self granted rights to free air travel after they retire.Finally from Ross NIXON’s link I reproduce Newton’s Laws of Experts, are as follows:
First Law: every expert persists in his state of rest or opinion unless acted upon by an external grant
Second Law: the rate of change of opinion is directly proportional to the applied grant
Third Law: for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.
………………………..
January 4th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
No answer to when there has been a period of Climate Stability on earth? Anyone? Nobody?
January 4th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Seems like I can only get responses from D4J and Redbaiter at the mo. Must be that silly season thing I guess….
January 4th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Tina,
best thing I’ve read on the subject in yrs.
common sense and viable. Very promising for the Arctic wild life as well
January 4th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
“Must be that silly season thing I guess….”
You’d know all about that gnomer pile . How did the stay in the Mason clinic go?
January 4th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
“No answer to when there has been a period of Climate Stability on earth? Anyone? Nobody?”
Easy- never. Not the answer you’ll get from any GW religionist.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Tina,
whats ‘Rovian’ ?
Never heard that term b4.
January 4th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
well mr nome i thought your post re planes trains and boats was quite good and made some sense.
anyone else – when has there been a period of Climate Stability on earth? I have to keep asking becuase I have asked it many times and it has never been answered. Come on all you climate change believers – what does the ‘church’ have to say? Climate Stability ever??????????
January 4th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
“[DPF: It is both. Their record is abysmal, but their policy target of carbon neutrality is ridicolous]”
But you can’t say that they won’t cut emissions at all, and then say that they will destroy the economy by severely cutting emissions – that’s the problem with your argument.
Also – whether “carbon neutrality” is a ridiculous goal or not depends on the target date. i.e. to aim for carbon neutrality by 2015 would of course mean a huge shock to the economy, but if say aimed at 2040, it may be a much smoother process – especially wit the many unforeseen technological advances which are likely between now and then.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
VTO, Redbaiter, Tina -
The scientific debate is done and dusted. The denialists are now forced to advance this weird conspiracy theory in which they suggest that every national science academy in the industrialised world is involved in a global plot to deceive the public. You have been reduced to a bunch of comical idiots. I just wish that the National party would hire one of you to be their spokes-person on climate change.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
“When there has been a period of Climate Stability on earth?”
The reason you probably don’t get many answers is because it isn’t a very relevant question. People who believe in climate change aren’t committed to believing in climate stability. The point is that the climate change we are experiencing now is unprecedented in human history (perhaps not in the earths history, but most people think that if climate change was to wipe humans out but leave the earth then we should do something about it), a threat to human existence, and caused by humans.
Interesting that people who oppose the vast majority of scientific thought criticise their opponents for ignoring the facts.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
yes mr nome I am sure it is done and dusted. Just like the church centuries ago, the flat earth society, Y2K, etc. We must believe. We must believe. We must believe. Naughty devil worshippers.
One thing about this whole debate is the tendency for the fanatics to personally attack those with a differing view. Pretty weak. Your post above said nought.
Mr nome – perhaps you could answer my question. When was there a period of Climate Stability on earth? simple question
January 4th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
“People who believe in climate …” Belief is the thing – have faith people, have faith.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
I have faith vto that gnomer can’t answer your question about “climate stability “
January 4th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
vto it’s a silly question. Of course temperatures vary – but we’re interested in the degree to which humans are due to make the global artificially warm. We can do nothing about the former, but we can do something about the latter.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Perhaps it’s time for some statistics.
NZ produces 0.67 kg of CO2 to generate 95US$ of GDP. Australia produces 0.91 kg to make the same amount of money; Britain on the other hand manages to keep it to 0.37 kg while China puts out 2.58 kg to earn it’s 95US$ (2003 figures from the International Atomic Energy Agency Energy and Environment Data Reference Bank (EEDRB)).
Looked at another way, NZ’s per capita emissions are twice the weighted average (8.088 per 1000 people vs 4.2 per 1000) but looked at in relation to other developed countries, are relatively low.
So, as is often the case, crack through the hard outer shell of rhetoric and there’s some sense on both sides of the debate. Yes, NZ puts out a fair bit of CO2 to earn our GDP. But compared to the majority of developed countries it’s doing pretty well already and – since it’s overall emissions are smaller than those of almost any developed country you can name, any effort we can make is but a drop in the ocean – or if you’d prefer, a puff in a gale.
Now, as to whether the “science is settled” that this man-made CO2 is in fact about to bring calamitous ruin down upon us, as baxter says above “for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert”.
That would suggest NZ should proceed with extreme caution, taking small steps which won’t damage the economy and certainly not shooting ourselves in the foot while major emitters (note that it’s the Arab states and not the Great Satan who are the worst per capita) do nothing.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
“the climate change we are experiencing now is unprecedented in human history”
A lie. A religionist lie. Goebbels/ Gore style propaganda.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
roger nome. It is not a silly question. It is highly relevant – how on earth (so to speak) can you measure a change unless it is against something not changing.
Anyway, some of my posting on this subject is a bit tongue in cheek. I accept there is almost certainly some effect from man’s activities and that should be addressed.
However, the fervour is approaching something like a religion where no dissent is tolerated. Tow the line boy-o.
And, when you look at earth’s physical history then the amount of change that may occur is still minor (though disruptive for some). The earth has been through hotter periods and colder periods (and life lived through them). There is a greater risk of an instant mini ice age from volcanic ash blocking sunlight for a short period, for example.
And back to my question – it seems settled now then that there has never been a period of Climate Stability. Worth bearing in mind.
Peace.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
“We can do nothing about the former, but we can do something about the latter.”
That’s not the argument lamer. The argument is- IS IT WORTH IT??? FFS..!!! You’re fucken hopeless. You can never argue the real issue. Prove that it is worth it. That’s what you have to do.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
vto, A period in time of climate stability has NEVER been recorded.
In fact many attempts at achieving a “steady state” in the sense of natural physics as only ever resulted in a reduction in the rate of measurable change.
The problem is that a “steady state” really requires the stopping of the passage of time. Only ever succeeded in the movies. LOL..
However the imagination of mankind knows now bounds and there are a great number of fools and conmen out there.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
actually, the debate is far from “done and dusted” – and a look at this site, with side-by-side articles from both camps, should be an eye opener. it won’t be, of course, but it should be.
http://climatedebatedaily.com/
January 4th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
vto – “how on earth (so to speak) can you measure a change unless it is against something not changing”
That comment suggests you may well be scientifically illiterate. Have you heard of acceleration? Its a simple example of measuring rate of change. You dont need to only work with things that aren’t moving to use acceleration. Likewise, with climate change there are at least two simple ways to look at it without assuming ‘cimate stability’, either consider the rate of change, or the level that the change results in. Either way it is possible, both generally and in this specific case, to measure change without starting from stability.
Putting that aside the question is irrelevent because people who believe in climate change aren’t committed to ‘climate stability’.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
David – not only do people who believe in climate change not have to believe in ‘climate stability’ they don’t have to be aiming for it either. It should be fairly straightforward that there are only a limited range of conditions that are conducive to human life. Climate change threatens to change significant parts of the planet from areas that are suitable for human habitation to areas that are not. Trying to avoid that doesn’t require a ‘steady state’.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Who says its going to cost US? For instance the Intercity bus line has made itself carbon neutral in an attempt to soothe the consciences of overseas tourists who come to NZ and use their buses. I don’t see why an overseas tourists would not just buy *roughly* $80-100 worth of offsets if flying to NZ if it bothered them, but didn’t want to go to a closer European destination.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Redbaiter -
Go and watch one of the world’s formost climate scientists and Australian of the year Tim Flannery talk on the issues. I honestly can’t be bothered spoon feeding you the facts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r60Wh_YIiJM&feature=related
January 4th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
beshakey – I am far from scientific illiterate. Had hoped that the whole rate of change / stable / acceleration techno point would be avoided for obvious reasons. You state the obvious.
But anyway, what rate of change are you comparing the current rate of change against then? Because the rate of change is of course always changing too. Oh my giddy aunt
And further beshakey, not only will areas of the planet be changed from habitable to uninhabitable but of course also from ununhabitable to habitable. This has occurred many times in human history by the way. Are there not huge swathes of the northern continents that will be able to grow more food and be warmer and hence more habitable?
Do the benefits of ‘warming’ get assessed at all?
January 4th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
It might be even more worthwhile to have a look at Russell Brown’s blog at Public Address (‘The Daily Embarrassment’ Dec 31). Not a comprehensive undermining of climate change deniers, but rather a look at the shoddy journalism, poor science, and misleading statements that underlie one particular article.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
vto – i’d like to avoid some of the obvious points as well, but they clearly need stating as they seem lost on many here.
Consider acceleration again, firstly, acceleration (and other rates of change) aren’t always changing. If something is accelerating then the velocity is always changing, while the acceleration can be constant. Not scientifically illiterate you say, maybe you just missed that particular one.
Regardless, even if the rate of change is itself constantly changing, it is still possible to compare various rates of change. For instance, the current rate of change could be greater than any previous rate of change during human existence, and that may be a cause for worry.
On your point about the benefits of climate change, I’m perfectly happy for them to be considered (in fact I would insist that they were). However I suspect it would be extraordinarily hard to do so. I’m sure your response would be that we should therefore do nothing because it is so uncertain. However (and this is point that is relevant to the question of how much uncertainty there is generally in the scientific debate), given the risks of not doing anything, the costs of doing something, and the potential costs of not doing anything, it seems clear that it is sensible to take action.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
The science is not settled. There is a growing amount of scientists that say that they don’t think the warming is all down to CO2. However, it is not PC to suggest this.
I beleive a lot of the science is flawed, take the infamous Hockey Stick by Mann, Bradley & Hughes. It is well and truely shattered as shown by McIntyre. I beleive that the result has been formulated before the experimentation and the data is found to fit the conclusion which is not science.
Peter
January 4th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
Ok Peter – so it’s a global conspiricy involving every national science academy in the industrialised world. Gotcha.
January 4th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
beshakey – hear what youre saying but disagree here and there.
One other point – if all we do then is bring the supposedly increased rate of climate change back to the normal rate of change then surely all that happens is that the effects are delayed from, say, 50 years to 500 years? The result is the same. Suppose it gives more time to move to the hills
January 4th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
“I honestly can’t be bothered spoon feeding you the facts.”
You pathetic halfwit. You don’t have any facts. That’s why you can never answer the questions that matter.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
VTO -
When C02 concentration reaches a critical level in the atmosphere we risk rapid and extreme climate change. At current atmospheric Co2 levels we run a 20% chance of this happening, and every year that chance increases, due to human-related GHG emissions. So it’s an immediate problem that we can mitigate.
Of course, in the end the sun will explode and humanity will probably be wiped out, but we’re talking about avoiding a problem that’s currently with us, talking about a possible natural warming that’s centuries into the future makes little sense – to much can change within that time frame – i.e. we might have technology that allows us to stop “natural warming” by that time.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Redbaiter-
You really are a bore. Thankfully i don’t have to convince raving lunatics such as yourself of the facts because most people who are intelligent enough to understand the science in this area completely disagree with you. As such the politicians are slowly but surely forced to come on board, and even the US representatives have now said that they will be setting emissions reductions targets in the near future. So feel free to yell and scream from the fringes. I won’t make a blind bit of difference.
January 4th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
hin….Carl Rove….the dark one…..eater of moonbat babies.
Plotter in chief of the dreaded neo cons.
My sorta guy.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Aaaah
Man who turned his brilliance to the dark side.
A Kissinger apostle??
May well come back from the dead
Inspired from the opposite of the devine.
Skull and cross bone number tatooed.
could be behind a Freemason attempt to assassinate Obama.
Certainly be behind the next world war.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
and tina,,
I understand why I’m out of your league.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
“one of the world’s formost climate scientists and Australian of the year Tim Flannery”
Hilarious, Tim is a self promoter who says he believes most of life’s occurrances are due to glorbell worming. I’ll go looking for some general idiocy from Flans for public mocking purposes.
“mammalogist” is his area…….no qualifications except general interest I’m afraid
January 4th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Nah. I’m a union girl hin.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Surprise surprise. Just on 3 News the Green Party pushing for the Govt to put a cap on the number of international visitors to NZ and focusing on stopping those coming from Europe.
January 4th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
roger nome Says:
January 4th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Seems like I can only get responses from D4J and Redbaiter at the mo. Must be that silly season thing I guess….
That’s because no one else can be fucked talking to you.
January 4th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Brilliant! Australia got a lot of free media publicity with “Where the bloody hell are you?!”, so just think how much we’ll generate with “NZ: Fuck off honky, we don’t want you”.
Do these idiots seriously believe what comes out of their mouths or do they figure it’s good for a few seconds of telly time and come election day all Mr & Mrs Punter will remember is that they’ve seen sos-and-so’s face on the box “so they must be doing something”?!
January 4th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Flannery is known as “Alarmist of the Year” in Aust.
Alas, he don’t get no respect…..
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/prediction_out_by_922500_megalitres/
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_warming_in_antarctica_flannery_fails_again/
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/flannery_blows_harder_than_a_hurricane/
January 4th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
I’m ringing around a few expats to tell them some idiot on Kiwiblog thinks Flannery is “one of the world’s formost climate scientists”.
You’re famous roggy.
January 4th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
roggy
aww, scooby
January 4th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
I try and help…..re roggy’s craving attention, I give him some and all I get in return is a silent sulky possum.
Is it something I said?…..or is he drowning in his own bullshit.
January 5th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Jesus from brilliant self proclaimed industrial relations academic , nay sage and scholar, to world authority on climatology and earth sciences. Thank God for the wonders of our education system. The dodger might be the answer to all future worries..the prat!
“The scientific debate is done and dusted. The denialists are now forced to advance this weird conspiracy theory in which they suggest that every national science academy in the industrialised world is involved in a global plot to deceive the public. You have been reduced to a bunch of comical idiots. I just wish that the National party would hire one of you to be their spokes-person on climate change.”
This from some-one who no doubt did not fly or use anything electrical from 23.59 on 31/12/1999.
The problem with all these fools are that while the world is chasing their tail on the carbon fairy tale, the amount of chemicals and rubbish allowed to leach into our oceans and our soils will kill this world far quicker than rising sea levels ever will.
And webrat you are so right. But with his dick headedness , while not lower yourself to speaking to him, he does draw some comment.