All good points. I don’t know enough about the 40 by 40 policy to comment on it, but if it’s a reasonable plan, then it’s good. From my pov, the Greens have a history of proposing unreasonable solutions. That doesn’t mean this one is of course, and if it’s workable, I’d think we should make the effort.

A very important point you make is that the sooner we so something, the easier and cheaper it will be. Many of us already have a very small carbon footprint – mine certainly is. I get sick of ads telling me ways to use less electricity, and that we all need to do more. I have been very careful with how much I use for years.

Public opinion maybe, but there isn’t that wide a range of opinion on the need to stay below 2 degrees warming, or what is required to achieve that, or that it is much cheaper to do now than later, or that it is probably too late already. Bets now are about how much over 2 degrees we will go and what that will do to our economies as well as our environment.

Like I said, 40 by 40 doesn’t need ag to achieve and the Greens say they would support that now. How long the rest of the public should carry ag when there are things they can start to do now can be another debate.

NZ should be more concerned exactly because we make a small contribution as this means our well being is almost entirely dependent on the international community. The only way to influence them to save our buns is to do as much as we can and then use that famous, punch-above-our-weight, kiwi influence we’re supposed to be so famous for to push others to do the same. Only Key can make that happen and he’s AWOL. It will be his legacy.

Thanks Mark. 🙂 I’m sure I won’t get a response. They surely get thousands of unsolicited contacts a day, both positive and negative.

Like you, it worries me the large number of people who think that either the world will be OK because God has promised not to destroy it again (as in Noah’s flood) or that what’s happening is evidence that the Rapture is not far away.

I think that’s fair – he doesn’t treat it more seriously than any other issue. However, with the extremely wide range of opinion on the matter, that’s understandable. While there’s a consensus that it’s a serious issue, there are plenty who aren’t making the catastrophic predictions. I’m sure from his point of view he’s just being reasoned. And NZ makes such a minuscule contribution to the world’s emissions, what we do won’t make a noticeable difference. That, of course, is not an excuse not to do our bit, we MUST. I just think there’s room for all parties to come together on this one. e.g. for the Nats to raise their goals and shorten their time frames, and for the Greens to accept that agriculture stays out in the meantime while more research is done.

Thanks Thomas. I appreciate it. 🙂

Do let us know if you get a response from Faux News.

I think English is a big problem – I’m pretty sure he’s a denier, and he has to be dragged kicking and screaming to provide any money. Key is a hands off manager, which is mostly good, but English takes advantage of it. My impression is climate change gets no funding unless Key specifies it.

The Green Party things I have a problem with are all agricultural, so we probably could reach agreement on other things. I like the way they’ve been making more of an effort in recent years to meet with business and make policies that are a win-win for both sides.

I do believe the Nats take climate change seriously, but there are relics, like English, who muddy the waters. They do need a more comprehensive plan. I think they are scared of scaring off voters, but that’s stupid. Where exactly do they think climate-change denying voters are going to go? The only possibility is ACT, who will always support them. Besides, I think the electorate is wanting a much better green agenda from all parties. Why the fu*k do they think so many are voting for the Greens anyway?

There was more about the subsidy thing on the news. Key again denied it, I still didn’t get the detail of why, but it’s that same $46 million figure that seems to be the contentious one.

The National-led government has significantly increased its support for oil and gas through indirect subsidies such as taxbreaks and support for exploration data and research – up from $6 million in 2009 to $46 million today. In total, support for consumption and production of fossil fuels has risen from $40.6 million to almost $85 million.

I don’t think the govt challenged the figures at the time, and today the WWF said:

In response to an OIA request last month, the government is now refusing to reveal how much it provides in tax breaks for petroleum mining on the basis that it no longer collects that information.

This is so typical of the National govt.

Agree about a 100% renewable target. There is no excuse not to do this in NZ.

The govt says it is upping the funding re agricultural emissions, but the feeling one gets is that they will study the matter forever. There are things that can be done now in ag that are relatively easy, but the Nats are never going to impose change on this core constituency that is also still quite in denial about climate change. They provide no leadership with their own.

If you’re talking about the Green Party, what exactly is completely unreasonable? Working with climate and industry experts, they’ve produced a plan that would reduce emissions 40% by 2040 even if ag was left out completely. What we lack is not options, but political will to avert even worse climate change than what is already locked in.

Meanwhile, the Finance Minister has dismissed out of hand the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s strong recommendation for the govt to provide support to councils to plan adaptation strategies for rising sea levels. Rather than use the RMA to address the huge environmental threat to communities, the govt has been trying to gut the RMA so that it is changed from being about managing environmental impacts to encouraging development.

There is really little reason to believe that the National Party actually takes climate change seriously at all. I think what they do is what they calculate is the bare minimum possible response so they can still claim they aren’t outright climate deniers. It is a charade.