New Zealanders Are Up For Anything Goes To Stop ‘Climate Change’

Well, I’m sure anything but measures that hurt their own lives

New Zealand readers say ‘everything’ must be prioritised in battle against climate change

After prime minister Jacinda Ardern declared a climate emergency this month, we asked you what New Zealand should prioritise to meet its climate change goals.

The responses varied widely, although there was broad consensus that more needed to be done to reduce emissions from agriculture and transport. Some of you argued for better urban design, while others advocated the introduction of a carbon tax, investment in renewable energy and more sustainable housing, efforts to reduce plastic waste and an increase in the planting of native trees.

Many of you also urged Ardern to exhibit the same leadership she showed during the Covid-19 crisis, to be brave in making decisions and honest with New Zealanders about the changes required to meet her government’s goals.

Here is a selection of your answers:

Most of the answers are about Government needs to do something, not about “hey, I’ll happily give up my own use of fossil fuels and make my life carbon neutral. Sure, I’m good with paying a lot more for energy and all goods and services. Sure, I’m good with rolling blackouts. Yes, I think we should stop all fossil fueled flights from coming to New Zealand with vacationers and goods. Sure, we should stop all fossil fueled ships that bring goods to New Zealand.”

Like the rest of the world it [NZ’s climate response] needs to do everything. Climate change is complex and there’s no easy fix. The solution is to reduce emissions across the board, and that means moving away from a lifestyle based on individual “success” to one based on collective wellbeing. That means bigger government, with more regulation and a stronger influence on what people and businesses do. It means a fairer distribution of wealth, better education, better public facilities (including transport), more emphasis on quality of life and less on material wealth, less “development” and more “conservation”. To put it simply, less greed and more sharing. It means changing society, and you can’t do that by focusing on one or two things.

Early on, when I started blogging, plus yapping on chat boards, people said I was crazy for saying that ‘climate change’ had little to do with science and everything to do with far left politics. I’ve told skeptical scientists and such that their focus on disproving the crazy science of the Cult of Climastrology was a waste, because this isn’t about science, and no matter what, Warmists will find a way. This is about politics.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

13 Responses to “New Zealanders Are Up For Anything Goes To Stop ‘Climate Change’”

  1. Conservative Beaner says:

    Grabbing their own ankles is the new national sport in NZ.


    We are no more capable of stopping climate change than we are of stopping the tides. 20,000 years ago an ice age was ending. It ended naturally because the planet warmed. Warming is a good thing because all living things thrive. That climate change episode was 100% natural. Natural changes to climate are occurring all the time no matter what we do. Another ice age will happen; it is only a question of when.

    We can add CO2, plant fertilizer, to the atmosphere with minimal impact because, in any period, there is a finite amount of infrared radiation(IR) sent our way by the sun. Once we have added enough CO2 to the atmosphere, all of the IR is absorbed and warming caused by CO2 has reached its maximum.

    Conclusions: 1) the climate changes naturally and there’s nothing we can do about it and 2: CO2 is not a problem.

    Now I’m ready for the hate.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Pointing out flaws in an argument is not hate.

      There is overwhelming evidence that atmospheric CO2 affects global temperature. The global warming that ushered in the Holocene WAS natural. It’s theorized that the cyclic glacial and interglacial periods result from minor changes in Earth’s orbit. There is no evidence that the current warming period is caused by these orbital cycles.

      You are correct that the Sun irradiation is relatively constant, but there is no evidence that the CO2 effect is saturable, in other words that adding more CO2 will not block any more infrared leaving Earth. If NO infrared was ever lost to deep space the Earth would just continue to warm. In fact, greenhouse gases absorb AND release radiation. More CO2 means less infrared radiated into space.

  3. Jl says:

    Hmm..That’s not what NASA said. “There is no evidence the current warming is caused by these orbital cycles.”. And there’s no evidence those orbital cycles caused the MWP, either, which was as warm or warmer. “Atmospheric CO2 affects global temps…”. But of course that isn’t the issue-it would be the effect of those temps.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Finally admitting that it’s warming? That’s a start.

      You linked to a 1971 article regarding atmospheric aerosols. Subsequent articles demonstrate that

  4. Jl says:

    No, I linked to an article about CO2 saturation. What are you reading? Irregardless, it says no runaway warming, which sane people already knew.

    • Elwood P. Dowd says:

      Commenter: Irregardless (sic), it says no runaway warming, which sane people already knew.

      The 1971 article proposed that human generated aerosols could cause an ice age.

      Scientific papers from this century discuss whether steadily increasing CO2/warming can trigger worrisome positive-feedback loops from increased water vapor and release of methane from the permafrost you think should be farmed.

      Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997. 2001. John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J. Bantges.
      Nature 410, 355–357.

      This and other research show that IR in the CO2-absorbing spectra wavelengths detected by satellites has DECREASED over the past 40 years. If saturation was reached by 1971 why is the amount of IR in the CO2-absorbing wavelengths leaving Earth decreasing with time. A sane person would conclude that added CO2 is reducing IR (heat) loss from the Earth into space.

  5. Jl says:

    Really? From the abstract- “It is found that additional CO2 does increase the surface temp..the increase diminishes with increasing CO2 in the atmosphere.” So in other words no runaway GH effect, as said. From the data we have now, CO2 has been 10-15 times higher than now with no runaway effect. Are you somehow inferring something different?

  6. Elwood P. Dowd says:

    As you well know, the No Tricks Zone misrepresents the conclusions of scientific reports to support his feeling/belief that CO2 does not cause warming. They cherry pick comments from papers to support their prejudice.

    Anyway, here’s what Zhang et al 2020 concluded: “… we demonstrated that the soil-retained heat and the slower soil heat transmission decrease the amount of heat energy leaking from the earth. Furthermore, the soil air temperature was affected by soil CO2 concentration, with the highest value recorded at 7500 ppm CO2. This study indicates that soil and soil CO2, together with atmospheric CO2, play a crucial role in the greenhouse effect.”

    So soil CO2 retains heat. See? (BTW, the article was from a group of Chinese scientists from Key Laboratory of Geospatial Technology for the Middle and Lower Yellow River Regions, Ministry of Education; Henan University, Kaifeng, 475004, China). Ministry of Education!?!?! Since when did you start trusting Chinese science???

    from Drotos:

    “Radiative-convective equilibrium, or RCE, has established itself as an elegant model problem for exploring the leading-order energetic balance that determines Earth’s global climate. In this model problem, Earth is conceptualized as non-rotating with a homogeneous and usually water-covered surface, an initially homogeneous atmosphere, subject to a homogeneous insolation.”

    A computer model that has to assume Earth as a non-rotating, homogeneous water-covered surface with homogeneous atmosphere and homogeneous insolation (sun energy). Do you now accept computer models as evidence?

  7. Jl says:

    As you well know, you’ve yet to come up with evidence that NTZ misrepresented the conclusions of this study. The Zhang study used “observational and modeling” results for its conclusions., not just modeling. And this, from the observational part of the study-“in other words, high CO2 concentrations may enhance net heat loss to colder surrounding interfaces when the heat absorption capacity of CO2 is saturated..”. Hmm ..CO2 saturation-where have we heard that before? I thought that didn’t happen? Guess it does . Continuing-“atmospheric temps with high CO2 concentrations (3200 to 16,900) were lower than those with lower CO2 concentrations (480)”. “Similarly, we observed (not modeled) both positive and negative effects of soil CO2 concentrations on soil air temperatures. So in other words, they found both a positive and negative effect of CO2 on air temperatures and soil temperatures, which would be contrary to the “settled science” of more CO2 always equals more heat

Bad Behavior has blocked 9371 access attempts in the last 7 days.