British High Commission on European ETS
October 28th, 2010 at 12:00 pm by David FarrarI blogged on Tuesday a comparison between the NZ ETS and the European ETS, concluding the NZ ETS is more “pure” as it includes all gases and all sectors.
The British High Commission has sent me this response, articulating the European view:
Same Game – Shared Targets
Many people note that New Zealand generates only a small proportion of global emissions and ask whether it matters if NZ acts or not. It very much does matter. If New Zealand – with its clean, green image – can’t make the move to low carbon, what hope for other countries? The important statistic in terms of global responsibility is greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions per person, that puts New Zealand near the top of the global league table.
Accurate figures vary depending on the source but the global average is around 7 tonnes of GHG per person per year. The UK and EU average is about 10 tonnes per year while New Zealand is around 19 tonnes GHG per person per year. To meet our global target of reducing emissions by 50%, everyone in the world needs to be at around 2 tonnes per capita by 2050. This shows the scale of the challenge facing New Zealand and all other countries.
The EU’s Game Plan
The ETS is only part of Europe’s response (more on this below). Commentators can only sensibly critique the European approach if the ETS is viewed in this context. More generally, no comment on European efforts should be made without acknowledging what Member States’ are already committed to. For example, by 2050 the UK is committed in law to having GHG emissions 80% less than those in 1990 (and so move from 10 to 2 tonnes per capita). In the nearer term the EU as a whole is committed to 20% (or possibly 30%) reductions by 2020.
It is misleading to make too much of a direct comparison between the EU and NZ ETSs. The crucial fact is that action to reduce an economy’s greenhouse gases requires a portfolio of policies. This is what we have in the EU. The key issue is to look at the best policy tool for reducing emissions in each sector. For example, the EU has looked at light vehicles (cars and vans) and recognised that they produce 12% of the EU’s emissions and so need to be tackled. So the EU passed legislation on the fuel efficiency of cars. It is now EU law that the fleet average for all cars registered in the EU is 130 grams per kilometre (g/km). This is being phased in over the next few years and there are hefty fines for companies that exceed the limit (up to 95 Euros per extra gramme of CO2 over the limit!). This is a sensible and effective approach to tackling transport emissions. So the fact that it is not in the EU ETS does not mean action is not being taken.
The same argument applies to housing, agriculture and waste. Each country also has a binding renewable energy target and their own range of policies (energy tax, feed-in tariffs etc) to ensure those targets are met. In addition the EU is contributing EUR 7.2 billion to climate finance over the next three years. Ultimately when comparing and contrasting the response to climate change of different economies the most important fact is the overall impact on GHG emissions. This shows that the EU is on the right track – 2009 emissions were around 17% below their 1990 level.
If forced to compare the NZ and EU ETS one key difference is that the EU ETS sets binding caps on emissions. So participants in the scheme will have their allocations gradually reduced to 21% below the 2005 level by 2020. There is currently no similar cap in the New Zealand scheme.
Climate change matters
Every country in the world will face stresses from climate change. Increased frequency and severity of floods, storms I and droughts will have a direct impact on New Zealand’s agriculture sector and infrastructure. The faster we all move to a low carbon economy – and there are a whole range of policies to get us there – the better.
Its great to get a response on what is a complicated and challenging issue.
Our per capita emissions are high, but that is partly because of the large number of cows we have, relative to humans. I have not calculated what it would excluding the cows, but suspect we would then be close to the UK average.
The UK response does impress upon me that doing nothing is not a viable option. Even Tony Abbott is not a proponent of doing nothing – he just proposes direct Government spending on climate change mitigation rather than an ETS.
Related posts:
- Frog on Aid and Climate Change
- ETS Debate continued
- NZIER on Emission Trading Scheme
- Copenhagen is worthless
October 28th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
“Every country in the world will face stresses from climate change. Increased frequency and severity of floods, storms I and droughts will have a direct impact on New Zealand’s agriculture sector and infrastructure. ”
THIS IS AN UTTER LIE, OF GOEBBELLIAN PROPORTIONS…!!
Shame on these scare mongering propagandists who cannot pursue their case with honesty.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 12:17 pm
“The faster we all move to a low carbon economy” the quicker the first world will be transformed into the third.
Which is probably what these demented bureaucrats want – after all a huge pool of impoverished people will provide a ready source of peasants to use as servants and children to be used as sex toys.
Its wickedness beyond belief.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 12:31 pm
And I commented on Tuesday:
When are the lies going to stop?
Vote:When are Western governments going to repeal bad laws based on equally bad science?
…
When are we going to reinstitute hanging for acts of treason? – I just hope our existing town square is big enough.
October 28th, 2010 at 12:39 pm
Inspired by a comment somewhere, I investigated what initially appears to be an urban myth, namely that termites (yes indeed) produce much more greenhouse gases than humans, because their emissions contain much more of these gases, while for every human on earth their supposedly is some 700kg of termite body mass, their entire menu consisting of cellulose.
Vote:Probably something for the interesting facts/theories department.
October 28th, 2010 at 12:41 pm
If we export milk, wood, beef (or any other product), in what country do the emissions get measured. Or is the easist way to reduce a countries to reduce emissions is to relocate all high emissions industries to 3rd world countries that dont have targets (and probably use coal to power those industries).
Surely when measuring the emissions, the burden should fall on the country that ‘benefits’ from the emissions (linked to the product), even if the product is manufactured, grown in another country.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
Anybody else bored of the greenhouse gas scam?
And by scam I don’t mean to deny greenhouse gases warm the planet, or that man is not partly responsible for their recent increase.
It’s the bit where catastrophy is made up from faulty, biased models which predict nothing, and the socialists have their collective wet dream fantasies fulfilled as a result that is total BS. It’s the bit where leading scientists in the catastrophy industry don’t take their critics on with science, but with repeated, personal and usually hypocritical attacks. It’s the bit where climate change is used as an excuse to prop up third world countries with policies that have failed again and again for fifty years, and which, by the way, have nothing at all to do with climate. Its the bit where the entire scientific community can be sucked in by a deeply faulty paper (Mann et al 1998) that makes him famous, guides global policy with a hockey stick, but nobody ever actually checks his work. Nobody, that is, until a retired mining engineer turns up in 2003 and destroys it.
It is both a sham and a scam.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Thanks DPF – an interesting discussion and response.
Red – do you think there is there ANY chance you might be wrong? That it’s not a giant conspiracy?
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
Emissions per capita (excl land use)
UK 9.23587
NZ 8.08758
Oz 16.5444
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 12:52 pm
DPF – why the continued head-in-the-sand attitude on ‘climate change’? You seem to enjoy the theory of ETS v carbon tax and the politics thereof whilst completely ignoring that the underlying premise has been completely debunked.
In other news, I have some snake-oil to sell…
[DPF: I have some scepticism over the indirect effects of greenhouse gases on the climate, but have no doubt that there is a direct effect which makes it desirable to have some sort of price on carbon]
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 12:54 pm
It is totally unfair that Nick Smith is being pilloried from many sides on the ETS issue with even a suggestion that he should be expelled from the National Party. Some of the ‘digs’ against him are of a nasty nature (ie Trevor Mallard style). What is forgotten is that Nick obviously enjoys the collective support of the PM, Cabinet and Caucus over this – he is not a one man band off on a frolic dictating Government policy on the ETS issue.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 12:55 pm
@Whoops – follow the money, who is making money out of the carbon markets?
Hint: Soros, Gore, Pachauri
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
“The UK response does impress upon me that doing nothing is not a viable option.”
The most telling comment of all. Incredible stuff which shows you’ve been sucked (boots and all) by the AGW machine.
I expect Smith and Key to increase taxation via the ETS over the coming years. No doubt, that as a loyal partisan you’ll support the move.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 1:05 pm
Wot rot!
The climate is always changing. We’re still coming out of the last ice age!
More floods and storms……this blog is sounding more and more like the Old Testament,now when was that written?
Repent and emit no more.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 1:12 pm
[DPF: I have some scepticism over the indirect effects of greenhouse gases on the climate, but have no doubt that there is a direct effect which makes it desirable to have some sort of price on carbon]
Huh?
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 1:20 pm
Whoops
Red – do you think there is there ANY chance you might be wrong? That it’s not a giant conspiracy?
Conspiracy has nothing to do with it. The co-ordinating mechanism across science is not an agreement between corrupt scientists. The co-ordinating mechanism is money that is expressly conditional on finding a problem. No government and almost no companies are interested in funding research that demonstrates there is no problem. And any that do are pilloried and suffer serious reputation damage.
That means all the good, well meaning people who have a theory that finds or explains a problem get money, and $billions of it, and all the good, well meaning people who have a theory that don’t get very little. At no stage do you have conspiracy, you have selection bias among (and largely out of sight of) the well-meaning.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 1:23 pm
You know it never stops bothering me that the religious are mostly on the same side of debate as me in this.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 1:26 pm
“Red – do you think there is there ANY chance you might be wrong?”
No chance. They’re brainwashing children- always the first sign that they do not have a logical argument- ie one that will withstand scrutiny.
Actually, the degree of environmental propaganda being disseminated in schools is a fascist disgrace. The Education Ministers and bureaucrats over the last few years should all one day be brought to account for this gross and amoral dereliction of their duty.
As their ilk in East Germany were when the Berlin wall fell.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
“You know it never stops bothering me that the religious are mostly on the same side of debate as me in this.”
Don’t you think its a bit distracting to be bothered by this when the main issue is so crucial. I regard most secularists as obsessive. Wilfully blind concerning the big picture. Your comment does nothing to dispel this impression.
The left love observing wedges driven into the opposition.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 1:33 pm
The implementation of ETS in UK has lead to an 13.5% increase in the carbon footprint of the UK. Proving that UK socialist agenda driven politicians have actively conspired to kill the planet through climate change.
NZ getting congratulations from such enviromental vandals as the UK is not good news.
http://www.carbonfootprintofnations.com/content.php?cID=81
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 1:43 pm
I regard most secularists as obsessive.
I think you’ll find most of us are just waiting for a bit of actual evidence before believing, and don’t respond well to threats, which damnation for the unbelieving surely is (if you’re that flavour of Christian). Basically: open to genuine evidence from any direction but neutral while we wait. That’s the opposite of obsessive.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 1:54 pm
>Every country in the world will face stresses from climate change.
If NZ’s climate was a few degrees warmer then its climate would be a lot more like Brisbane’s and people would be generally much happier. If the UK’s climate was a few degrees warmer then they might stop complaining about what a cold miserable place it is for a few minutes.
But it is clear than NZ’s carbon emissions are due to our agricultural sector, and the only way to achieve the 80% cuts that the British High Commission would have us make would be to quit producing so much food. They’re advocating starvation to appease their carbon cult religious beliefs.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 1:59 pm
The argument for man-made global warming consists of three links :
1. We humans are raising the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere by our emissions.
1. Increasing CO2 levels causes the temperature at the surface of the earth to rise, because CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is the “direct” warming effect of the extra CO2.
3. The earth responds to the direct warming in many ways, called “feedbacks”. The feedbacks warm the earth further, amplifying the direct warming about threefold.
All three links must be true for the theory to be valid; a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
There is ample evidence for the first two links, and they are rarely disputed. The third link is where the dispute lies. In the establishment’s climate models, this amplifying feedback provides about two-thirds of the projected warming—without it there is only mild warming due to human emissions and no cause for climate alarm. There is no evidence for this amplifying feedback, but it is built into the climate models. When skeptic scientists say “there is no evidence” for man-made global warming, they are generally referring to the lack of evidence for these amplifying feedbacks.
[Some in the establishment would say there is evidence: They assume that all the warming since 1700 is due to rising CO2 levels (except for a small increase in the sun’s light output). We know the amount of extra CO2 over that period (link 1), how much extra direct warming that causes (link 2), and how much extra warming actually occurred (Figure 17)—so we can calculate the required effect of the feedbacks (link 3) to make that happen, which turns out to be threefold amplification. But this just replaces the threefold amplification assumption with the assumption that only rising CO2 levels caused the warming. It’s still, at base, just an assumption without evidence—because there is (and can be) no evidence that there were no other forces that could have caused the global warming.
The climate establishment also argues, in other contexts, that there are no other forces that could have caused the warming by saying their climate models can only explain the observed warming if CO2 is the only cause of the warming. This logic is circular, because the climate models are only calibrated with threefold amplification based on the assumption that there were no other causes for the recent global warming trend. Talk about having your cake and eating it too. The press apparently isn’t inquisitive enough to notice this trick. When critics outside the climate establishment point it out, the climate establishment just denigrates them and then announces in their most reassuring voice that they are the authorities and it’s all ok. What a bunch of charlatans! Finally, notice from Figure 21 that human CO2 emissions could not have caused the half of the global warming before 1850, so their assumption about no other causes is obviously wrong. So no evidence—just a logical trick that is sufficient to fool most of the audience.
They also on occasion offer up other historical instances as evidence for the threefold feedbacks amplification, but they are all very flimsy. The threefold amplification is really just based on the warming starting around 1700, which is the only instance for which we have decent numbers.]
If there was evidence for the threefold amplification by the feedbacks, surely we would have heard all about it, just like we hear about the evidence for the first two links? Instead we are just referred to climate models and told how terrific they are. But models are just computerized calculations; they are not evidence.
The climate establishment and media only talk about the first two links. Hardly anyone knows about the third link, which is responsible for most of the projected warming. If the case for man-made global warming is strong, why this obfuscation?
The effect of the feedbacks is the crucial question in climate science.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-9-the-heart-of-the-matter-and-the-coloring-in-trick/#more-11206
[DPF: Thank you for that. Great explanation]
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 2:05 pm
ben 1:23 pm,
Surely you’re not suggesting the possibility that we may in fact be right about some other things of which you disagree with us, Ben? And that perhaps that bothers you more than whether we agree with you on the scam of AGW/the ETS?
Perhaps clarity in one area regarding “truth” relates to clarity in other areas where “truth” is concerned – something to mull over when you have time.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 2:10 pm
“I think you’ll find most of us are just waiting for a bit of actual evidence before believing,”
That statement does not gel with your comment at 1:23 pm. The 1:23 comment supports my claim of obsession.
“(if you’re that flavour of Christian).”
I don’t know if that is directed at myself or the general “you”, but I am not religious. I regard most Christians though as decent people, and I admire them rather than disparage them. I also regard our Christian heritage as something worth defending.
We need every man/ woman we can get in the fight against socialist fascism. Christians are a welcome and strong force in that fight. To exclude them because one is a secularist is obsessive and in the long run, not helpful at all to defeating the left.
One of the main reasons the left enjoy such political dominance is that they have been able to drive wedges into the opposition. Christianity is one such wedge. There are others, and in the same way, we give all of these distractions too much attention. Our forces are weakened as a result of this lack of unity.
The focus needs to be solely on defeating the left, and a big help in meeting that objective is to refrain from playing the game by their rules.
(BTW, your statement relating to evidence is silly. Really, to think of it in these terms is very immature.)
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 2:39 pm
The planet is cooling. We should be researching cold tolerance in wheat or rice instead of the red herring of global warming.
Vote:You can spin the same story as many times as you like it does not change the facts, man made global warming is a myth.
They have stopped trading carbon credits per tonne on the Chicargo exchange because they keep trading at zero. There are multi national companies in the US that are preparing law suits in the future when the cooling becomes evident. This is going to be very enjoyable to watch.
October 28th, 2010 at 2:41 pm
Kris K
Surely you’re not suggesting the possibility that we may in fact be right about some other things of which you disagree with us, Ben? And that perhaps that bothers you more than whether we agree with you on the scam of AGW/the ETS?
Certainly not. I think what bothers me is that people of faith, who by definition are unwilling or unable to have their view on those matters tested, happen to side with me on other things. I like to think that I am a climate skeptic not as a matter of faith but because the basic ideas in AGW catastrophy theory are testable yet scientists are either unwilling or unable to test some important propositions in it. Having the religious therefore makes, for me, uncomfortable bedfellows.
Perhaps clarity in one area regarding “truth” relates to clarity in other areas where “truth” is concerned – something to mull over when you have time.
I think this hits the nail on the head. The religious don’t have systems for discovering truth, and so where they make testable predictions they are almost always wrong. You can’t recognise truth if you don’t test for it. It is precisely this that makes me uncomfortable.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 2:55 pm
Redbaiter
That statement does not gel with your comment at 1:23 pm. The 1:23 comment supports my claim of obsession.
“(if you’re that flavour of Christian).”
i don’t know what you’re reading into that comment, but it simply reflected the fact that some but not all Christians believe in damnation. What my obsession has to do with that fact about the world isn’t obvious.
It was the general “you” – I don’t know your faith.
Christian decency isn’t at issue here.
Christians are a welcome and strong force in that fight. To exclude them because one is a secularist is obsessive and in the long run, not helpful at all to defeating the left.
A problem is that because Christians for some reason seem to line up against green fascism, that allows the fascists to paint skeptics as dogmatic and themselves as on the side of science. I don’t know why Christians seem to oppose green fascism, but if it is because they see Greens as trying to replace god as an authority, or some such, then I am embarrassed to be on the same side. It isn’t simply a numbers game.
The focus needs to be solely on defeating the left, and a big help in meeting that objective is to refrain from playing the game by their rules.
Hey, the one and only game I am playing is evidence based policy. I rather suspect Christians and certainly know green fascists are playing other games. Which, by the way, have nothing to do with the environment.
(BTW, your statement relating to evidence is silly. Really, to think of it in these terms is very immature.)
How bizarre to call that immature. I happen not to be willing to take the word of the guy in the frock and the big hat, or the bloke praying to the east six times a day. I expect to be given a sound reason or good evidence one way or the other for believing in this or anything else. That is precisely the same rule we all apply in most other things we do. If anything is immature it is not recognising an argument from authority or argument from incredulity or any of the other rhetorical tricks employed by the religious.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 3:55 pm
You know it never stops bothering me that the religious are mostly on the same side of debate as me in this.
Ben,
The easy answer is that somehow the climate change debate has become quasi-religious. And like all quasi-religious debates it tries to make observable scientific facts “prove” a position of religious (Christian/Marxist/Randian/whatever) dogma. The current climate change debate can be mostly defined as:
The world requires socialist style global production controls to protect it from the obviously occuring climate change.
- versus –
The last thing the world needs is a worldwide socialist government so obviously climate change is not occuring.
Basically its total bullshit, because the existance/non-existance of climate change does not prove/disprove the need for socialist world government.
To reclaim the the climate change debate for rationality it needs to be broken down into 2 debates:
Part 1 – does man’s pollution of the atmosphere cause climate change?
Part 2 – if it does what should we do about it?
To which I answer as a heretic:
Part 1 – don’t know, but leaning towards it probably does.
Part 2 – the solution to climate change is small government.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
“i don’t know what you’re reading into that comment,”
There was absolutely no need to make such a comment. The issue is global warming. That you seem driven to make the thread a discussion on religion seems to me obsessive in the way that secularists so often clog up every issue with this concern. Why can’t you just be a damn secularist and shut the fuck up about it? Right now and in a good example of the divisive nature of your obsession, you have distracted yourself, myself and a lot of other people from highlighting the weaknesses in the GW scam. The left love you for that.
“How bizarre to call that immature.”
I called it immature because that is how it seems to me. Your explanation has only increased that impression. IMHO, you’re a light year away from having any understanding of religion that would allow you to have any kind of meaningful discussion with those who believe.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Take livestock out of it, all the methane the cows produce oxidises to CO2 over 10 years and is then removed from the atmosphere to grow grass. The National Govt should never have agreed to including it in Kyoto and if Simon Upton had done 3rd form science he would not have.
Also why would any Govt agree to be liable for the emissions produced when it burns oil that was produced overseas and as well as that be liable for the emissions produced by food products that are exported overseas and the carbon in them released to the atmopshere by the overseas country.
Dumb Dumb Dumb and believe it or not Simon Upton has still got a job despite such a monumental mistake!
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 5:19 pm
Ben,
Examine how some Randians ascribe an ethos to the occurance of climate change:
“The issue is global warming.”
You might see global warming as a set of scientifically observable and measurable inanimate occurances in the real world.
“The left love you for that.”
A Randian however ascribes global warming to be a djinn with leftist intentions, a djinn that with each mentioning of its name will become stronger. Any good Randian therefore seeks to deny this “evil spirit” as part of a greater crusade against the evil left.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 5:35 pm
Redbaiter, it doesn’t make sense to argue I shouldn’t say something because of your misinterpretation of it. This is a thread about global warming and I’m uncomfortable being tarred by the religion’s dogma on this side of the GW argument. Get over it.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
“This is a thread about global warming and I’m uncomfortable being tarred by the religion’s dogma on this side of the GW argument. Get over it.”
I’m happy to get over it. You need to do the same I think and refrain from turning other subjects into an expression of your parochial distaste for Christianity. As I said, the left love it. You’ve given them tremendous heart here today. While we squabble over such bullshit they press on with enslaving us. I wish so earnestly that all of you damn tiresome secularists would just leave Christians alone and focus on the real enemy.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 5:55 pm
“This shows the EU is on the right track-2009 emissions were around 17% below their 1990 levels”. Yes of course they are………given the state of the EU it’s lucky the levels are only that low. But of course the EU didn’t suffer under the WWR, it was full steam ahead over there, Tui ad. Perhaps the high commission can inform us on how many ETS schemes have been utter and total failures in the good old EU. Just leftist propaganda from a society that is in it’s twilight years trying for some relevancy in today’s world.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
The response seems to have skipped over the part where the EU intends illegally to apply its scheme to international air travel outside the borders of the EU – flights to or from the EU will be included in whole. This means long-haul carriers will end up paying more than intra-EU operators. In other words, non-EU airlines will be paying an EU tax ostensibly intended to reduce intra-EU emissions.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
It seems to me that ben believes we Christians are incapable of critical thinking and therefore our positions on Global Warming (which are not unified BTW) can only have come from some inherent predisposition born out of our faith.
Ben, I sincerely assert to you that I am capable of critical thinking and that my Christianity does not predispose my skepticism on AGW in any way other than encouraging me (I feel) to search for truth and wisdom.
I expect you will resist this, but Christianity is not about abandoning one’s intellect – faith and science can form a marriage in one’s mind that does not involve wife-beating….
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
createcoms 6:18 pm,
Well said, Createcoms – hits nail on head.
Vote:As you implied; there is no issue between faith and (true) science – as opposed to false/bad science like that observed by those who push the AGW lie.
October 28th, 2010 at 7:59 pm
I’ve decided I can no longer be arsed discussing whether or not it’s real. Of course it’s not, it’s a childish fantasy, really.
However, it’s pointless arguing whether it exists scientifically, or not. Fact is, it’s in the global geopolitical framework permanently, like it or not. So how are we going to deal with this?
The Greens’ helpful suggestion is no doubt to eliminate the cattle failing as usual to see the irony in that attitude. Perhaps they’d have an “Adopt Daisy” campaign to assuage their more mental voters. Mental is as mental does.
Meanwhile the rest of us need to do something else, and what the fuck is that?
Apart from eliminating The Greens I have no helpful suggestions.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 9:05 pm
Redbaiter, I don’t see you responding this way to the many, many other people that take threads in other directions. Your argument is simply that I am wrong to say something you don’t like. In other words, it is politically incorrect for me to have said it.
Pot meet kettle.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 9:09 pm
Createcoms I don’t doubt you. What interests me, and bothers me, is why Christians seem to so frequently line up against AGW. Is it a product of faith or of something else? Does Christianity correlate with a sort of ingrained rejection of (human) authority, or with reasoned skepticism in scientific matters? If so, why? These are genuine questions.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 9:15 pm
“…why Christians seem to so frequently line up against AGW.”
So which Christians do you know, ben? The ones I know strongly tend the other way. You’re not talking about the mythical Missionary Conservative Christian that doesn’t exist anymore?
That doesn’t exist anymore.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 9:22 pm
Redbaiter the real enemy is dogma, be it socialism, or religion. Both have killed millions. Both enslave and suppress. Neither respect freedom or the individual. Both grant power to misuse against other people. As I think Sam Harris said, nobody was killed because people were being too reasonable. Dogma is the enemy. Both AGW and religion can be rejected on grounds of defying reason and evidence, and I consider both to be serious threats to freedom and exercise of reason. Religions inculcate the young in precisely the way you complain the warmists do, and in fact for the very reasons you correctly cite above. Be consistent and point your insights at the full set of people who despise reason.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 9:24 pm
Reid – I’m not going to get into complaints about generalisation. As I make perfectly clear, it’s an impression, and it may be wrong. I know perhaps ten Christians and as far as I know all are skeptical about AGW. Fox News is no friend of AGW and no enemy of Christians.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
“Redbaiter the real enemy is dogma, be it socialism, or religion.”
Rubbish. People can subscribe to dogma all they want in any free country. Government in the US is defined by the Constitution. Some people might say that was dogma. Saying the real enemy is dogma is a statement so broad in its sweep as to be meaningless. Go away. I do not want to hear about your petty pre-occupation with religion. You have nothing useful to say and it bores me.
“Redbaiter, I don’t see you responding this way to the many, many other people that take threads in other directions.”
I frequently criticise you obsessive secularists for introducing religion at the expense of other topics. Hang around a bit, and you’ll appreciate a bit more accurately how much it pisses me off.
“Pot meet kettle.”
Get a life you tiny minded wanker. Political Correctness has very little to do with any subject under discussion on this thread.
Sheeese you obsessive secularists are sooo tiresome. Go and join Labour.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 9:42 pm
Emissions per capita in the country of production? Or emissions per capita in the country of consumption?
Considering most of our beef and milk products are for export, this is an important distinction. Most people calculate their carbon emissions by the type of food they eat (meat producing more carbon supposedly), as well as the energy they consume.
Also, I’m not quite sure how an animal that gets its carbon from a carbon-fixing organism (grass) is carbon-positive, unless methane is considered worse than CO2…
[Edit: Hooray, I finally figured out how to quote in this messageboard. And all it took was viewing the raw page source *rolls eyes*]
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 9:53 pm
“Also, I’m not quite sure how an animal that gets its carbon from a carbon-fixing organism (grass) is carbon-positive, unless methane is considered worse than CO2…”
Dear IPCC:
When I took on board all this AGW stuff and gave up eating fillet steak and replaced it with healthy legumes,nuts and huge amounts of planet loving fruit I noticed that I commenced to fart uncontrollably at every possible occasion which of course was most embarrassing.
I found I could only rectify this dreadful contribution to methane based greenhouse gases by going back to an all steak and chips diet washed down with copious amounts of piss and the odd mince pie for breakfast.
Should I kill myself now as a sacrifice to Gaia or should I wait for the sea level rise to drown me?
Regards Johnboy.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 11:04 pm
Redbaiter, thanks, now that you’re reduced, once again, to name calling I’ll go have a cup of tea.
Recall that I think global warming is a scam, and a sham, and I happen to place high value on liberty and reason. All of which would get me kicked out of a Labour conference faster than Al Gore’s private jet. Or a National conference, for that matter.
Vote:October 28th, 2010 at 11:13 pm
.
Vote: