Now the climate crisis is self-evident, a common argument by those who STILL defend polluters is that “NZ is too small to make a difference, and so shouldn’t have to stop intensive dairy farming or driving Ford rangers to school in Auckland”
Rod Carr destroys it in this mic-drop moment.
wow that was actually a mic-drop moment.
Amazingly clear explanation. If you still think we’re too small to matter after watching that you probably were never going to be convinced
Well yes.
More than that it’s too late now to do anything anyway. We are not going to be able to prevent catastrophic climate change and there is a very real chance we are going to go through a world wide age of suffering and pain for most humans on this planet towards the end of my life span. Luckily I will be dead by the time civilisation collapses but chances are nobody will be able to take care of me in my old age and my end is not going to be pleasant.
This is false. While we can’t avoid climate change completely (it’s happening now), we can still limit the damage. Every 0.1 degree matters. This kind of doomerism is a form of denial.
I disagree. I don’t think .1 degree matters and I don’t think there is anything we can do to cool the earth by .1 degree or even prevent another .1 degree rise.
It’s truly too late. Even we got to carbon zero tomorrow the carbon in the atmosphere right now is going to have devastating impact for years to come.
Our only hope is that we somehow missed a feedback mechanism and it kicks in.
I disagree.
It’s not a matter of opinion, it’s a matter of science. Have a look at the IPCC reports, or read articles from legitimate sources, like:https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/04/recent-readings-on-climate-doomerism-and-science/
The science is clear on what the causes are (almost all of which are well within our control to mitigate), and on the differences between 2C and 3.5+C. The latter will be far far worse than the former, and there’s absolutely no technical or economic reason why 2C (or lower) is not achievable.
The IPCC has been drastically underestimating the rates and magnitude of climate change in all of their forecasts. It’s clear they are putting politics and PR above science in order not to panic the population.
I just don’t trust them to represent the actual science in the matter.
If you don’t trust climate scientists to represent the actual climate science, then I don’t know what to tell you.
This has nothing to do with trust. They put out forecasts and we know with 100% certainty that all of their forecasts underestimated how much warming there was going to be and how fast.
Why would you give them your blind trust after such a performance?
Do you really believe they were wrong in all of their previous forecasts but now they are right?
And to counter your disgusting accusation that I am anti science:
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations. It’s not “the climate scientists”. It’s a political body and it’s obvious that it’s white washing what their scientists are telling them and bowing to political pressure.
So fuck off with your insult and calling me a science denier.
The IPCC is a body made up of some of the top climate scientists from around the world. They work to summarise the latest climate science over the last few years. So it is definitely a scientific body.
Where is the scientific evidence that says it’s too late and there’s nothing we can do?
“we are one of the richest nations in the world”
It doesn’t feel like that to me.
If climate change is real, and it’s caused by cow farts and 1300cc cars being driven 3 times a week, how come the government won’t build affordable apartments, that way we can make better use of walking, cycling and public transport? I own a bike but I can’t ride it, because my landlord doesn’t let me store it anywhere. If I want a place that has a shed, I’ll have to pay an extra $150 a week or more.
It’s incredibly stupid that some countries will ban petrol cars by 2030, when Mazda 2 and Toyota Corolla use almost no fuel. I don’t drive very often so I re-fuel every 3-4 weeks LOL
Where will the farmers work instead, if dairy farms are shut down by the government? Will farmers move into the city, live in a prison-size bedroom, in a boarding house with a dozen indians, and stack shelves at Countdown at 3am? Somehow I don’t think the dairy farmers will like that.
The climate change agenda is supposed to get us cycling and catching the bus more, and living in higher density apartments, near to our workplace. But when was the last time anyone saw an apartment go up in Christchurch? Only in the CBD or nearby areas. If I live anywhere else, I must drive a 10 year old ICE car, because landlords don’t provide a garage for an EV, and employers expect me to have reliable transport. I suppose I should just buy an EV that costs 3x more than a regular car, and then pay one of the other tenants to have the cable hang out of their window to reach my car? Fat chance.
How about we start local manufacturing and stop importing from China? What about a restriction on how many migrant workers can fly here on a co2 emitting plane? We could cut international flights by 20% and half the amount of work and study visas being approved. That’s another way to cut our carbon emissions. Stop globalisation, stop having so many flights and stop the import of foreign products. At least reduce it.
Climate change policy just means we’ll have more poverty, less taxes being paid and a worse society over-all. We won’t get the utopia that the greens are promising. Show me 6 storey apartments on Riccarton Road, that have EV charge parks at no additional cost, and bike storage at no additional cost (must have power, lighting and protection from rain at all angles so my bike chain doesn’t rust). If they can’t do this, then I’m against “climate action” because it’s a threat to my meagre existence. I live just above the poverty line and people like Rod Carr obviously have millions of dollars, so they don’t even know what it’s like to be part of the working poor.
Did I miss this copypasta? I’ve never seen so many straw man arguments presented at once
Measuring climate change impact per captia is a ccp talking point and I cringe every time I see it mentioned. Population size does not give you the right to pollute more. The biggest polluters need to make changes immediately.
If you want to reduce our per captia carbon emissions bring another 5million people into the country. The value our farmers bring to the world far offsets the carbon output. We should do our best to reduce emissions where possible but forcing reduction in output does more harm than good.
Population size does not give you the right to pollute more.
I don’t think that’s the point he’s making. He’s just saying NZ may be a small percentage of emissions, but proportionally we emit more than our fair share.
The biggest polluters need to make changes immediately.
Partly true. Everyone needs to make changes immediately. Big or small. Remember that a large portion of China’s emissions are from products exported to the West. That doesn’t get China off the hook, but it also means Western countries (including NZ) have to accept their responsibility in those emissions.
The value our farmers bring to the world far offsets the carbon output.
Source?
We should do our best to reduce emissions where possible but forcing reduction in output does more harm than good
Not exactly sure what you mean by “forcing reduction in output”, but if you mean consuming less, then yes we will need to do that. Climate change will not be fixed with tinkering around the edges. It needs transformational action.
