Breakfast briefing: Game lost, prepare to adapt

Economy / news

US data positive; Korea growth slows; India rises but faces high inflation; UN report shows climate battle essentially lost; freight rates fall; UST 10yr 4.19%; gold up and oil down; NZ$1 = 60.1 USc; TWI = 68.9

25th Oct 24, 7:22am by David Chaston

Here's our summary of key economic events overnight that affect New Zealand with news we need to get ready for a +3^o future and start adapting for it.

But first, initial jobless claims in the US came in at just 203,000 last week, much lower than expected. There are now 1.635 mln on these benefits. We are about a week away from getting the US non-farm payrolls report and current estimates are that it expanded just +140,000 in October. That may be conservative.

But the Chicago Fed's monitoring of their National Activity Index reveals a slip in September.

But in October that may have picked up, and substantially. The S&P/Markit US factory PMI contracted its least in three months, and their services PMI is still expanding at a good pace and has been for six months now. This helps explain why employment has been stronger than expected for some time.

The other encouraging feature of these PMI reports is that inflation pressures seem absent now.

The Kansas City Fed's regional factory survey showed these trends; factory activity barely contracting now which was a sharp improvement from September. And their services sector was expanding still.

Although firms in both regional and national surveys are increasingly optimistic about the future, they seem to be ignoring - or looking past - the damage the extended Boeing strike will cause. More here.

Also encouraging for them is that American new home sales were on the rise in September, rising to a 738,000 annual rate, its highest since the outlier May 2023 spike. The September level is +6.3% higher than a year ago. This time, new home sales seems to be on a rising trend.

In Japan their flash October PMI report shows a contraction too in their factory sector, but also only a minor one. But output and new order levels slipped at a slightly faster rate. Their services sector isn't expanding either according to this same report, a slip from the prior month. Apparently Japanese businesses are struggling to adapt to their modest inflation pressures.

Korea reported its Q3-2024 GDP yesterday, revealing a +1.5% growth rate, lower than the +2% expected at the +2.3% in Q2-2024.

India's October PMIs stayed strongly expansionary. New order levels were high. But there are signs of serious overheating, and inflation in India is a building concern.

There is no overheating in the EU with everything ticking lower in October. But at least their service sector is still expanding.

In Australia, their October PMI survey reveals that their factory sector is at a 53 month low with a moderate contraction. Their services sector however is holding its own - just.

An updated UN report shows that we have essentially run out of time to cut greenhouse gas emissions. We are on track for a +3^oC rise in global temperatures and that will radically change how the planet operates, most of it not good. The difference between rhetoric and action is stark. China (+5.2% rise in emissions) and India (+6.1%) are overwhelming the US (-1.4%) and EU (-7.5%) restraint. Together China and India released 20,140 MtCO2e of greenhouse gas, 38% of the global total. Together the US and the EU released 9,200 MtCO2e or 17%. Neither China nor India are likely to heed the evidence, and if Trump is elected, the US will likely switch sides - so it will now be all up to how we adapt. Fortunately, New Zealand is in a relatively good position (or less-bad position).

Container freight rates fell another -4% last week but are still +118% higher than the 2019 pre-pandemic average. Again it was outbound China routes that fell but there was also a slip in rates from the US to China. Bulk cargo rates fell a sharper -12.5% last week, to be -28% lower than a year ago and back to pre-pandemic levels.

The UST 10yr yield is now at just on 4.19% and down -6 bps from this time yesterday. The key 2-10 yield curve is positive, and still +16 bps. Their 1-5 curve inversion is still inverted by -25 bps. And their 3 mth-10yr curve inversion is slightly deeper at -54 bps. The Australian 10 year bond yield starts today at 4.50% and down -2 bps. The China 10 year bond rate is at 2.15% and unchanged. The NZ Government 10 year bond rate is just under 4.52%, down -2 bps from yesterday.

Wall Street is little-changed today with the S&P500 up +0.2% in Thursday trade. Overnight, European markets were also just marginally former, mostly up +0.1%. Tokyo ended yesterday up +0.1% too. Hong Kong was down -1.3% and Shanghai fell another -0.7%. Singapore rose +0.1%. The ASX200 ended its Thursday session down -0.1% and the NZX50 was up +0.2%.

The price of gold will start today at US$2732/oz and up +US$12 from yesterday.

Oil prices are -50 USc softer at just on US$70/bbl in the US while the international Brent price is now just over US$74/bbl.

The Kiwi dollar starts today at 60.1 USc and up +10 bps from this time yesterday. Against the Aussie we are also up +10 bps at 90.6 AUc. Against the euro we are down -10 bps at 55.6 euro cents. That all means our TWI-5 starts today at just on 68.9, and down -10 bps from yesterday at this time.

The bitcoin price starts today at US$67,558 and up +2.5% from this time yesterday. Volatility over the past 24 hours has been moderate at just on +/- 2.1%.

We will return on Tuesday, after the long Labour Day weekend holiday.

Daily exchange rates

Select chart tabs

Source: RBNZ

Source: CoinDesk

The easiest place to stay up with event risk is by following our Economic Calendar here ».

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.

112 Comments

by False economies | 25th Oct 24, 7:37am 1729795063

We are on track for a +3% rise

3% or 3 degrees Celsius? 3% would be pretty extreme!

by Let me be Frank | 25th Oct 24, 7:40am 1729795245

Must have meant 3 degrees C.....3% would be a blessing as global average is currently around 15 degrees C.

by Clefton Twain | 25th Oct 24, 8:09am 1729796985

Unless we're talking Kelvin in which case 3% is 8.6 degrees... :)

by False economies | 25th Oct 24, 9:26am 1729801560

That's what I was thinking. Always annoys me when weather forecasters say its "twice as warm" in on place compared to another. That would be about 550 degrees more!

by M0ralHazard | 25th Oct 24, 8:22am 1729797757

3deg is pretty extreme too!

by GoWokeGobroke | 25th Oct 24, 6:33pm 1729834415

@ False economies - "3% would be pretty extreme!"

Absolutely agree. With nost Economists now predicting between 6-10% rise just next year alone, 3% does sound pretty extreme, extremely low.

Cost of living at all times highs, this is recognized by the Reserve bank which is now rapidly dropping the OCR to avoid de flation, interest rates dropping, banks test rates dropping, banks offering $ to review loans & cashback incentives for new mortgages taken out, relaxing Amendment on the CCCFA, deposit sizes reduced, all signs that we have now we'll reached "the bottom", & are now looking to re stimulate the economy & get spending re going again.

by Jbd | 25th Oct 24, 7:47am 1729795631

China (+5.2% rise in emissions) and India (+6.1%) are overwhelming the US (-1.4%) and EU (-7.5%) restraint. Together China and India released 20,140 MtCO2e of greenhouse gas, 38% of the global total. Together the US and the EU released 9,200 MtCO2e or 17%. Neither China nor India are likely to heed the evidence,

Well, to be fair, a lot of their emissions are really our emissions. When the "first World " outsourced manufacturing, we also outsourced the emissions to support our consumption.

by Foxglove. | 25th Oct 24, 7:58am 1729796292

Perhaps but that new $28 billion rail bridge in China, just to transport coal, is as telling as it is ominous and as well, when coupled to the point made above, the CCP remains heedless as to the unchecked rise in emissions.

by agnostium | 25th Oct 24, 10:19am 1729804776

You have things the wrong way round. We are causing the emissions. It's our lifestyle that generates the Emissions per Capita and it is out lifestyle the poorer countries are aspiring too. We are the problem not China.

by Beanie | 25th Oct 24, 10:31am 1729805471

And under what scenario would we willingly reduce our lifestyle?

Exactly.

by Pa1nter | 25th Oct 24, 10:59am 1729807187

We come to the realization that much of it's not even benefitting us much personally, let alone the planet.

But we're hungry ghosts, thinking more=better.

So a while off for the most part.

by mfd | 25th Oct 24, 11:29am 1729808942

Some of it is obvious. Like getting in the car to pop to the shops or taking yourself to work uses far more resources than the alternatives and makes us less healthy at the same time - meaning even more resources required for healthcare when our inactive bodies fall apart. Swapping the ton of metal for one with a battery instead of a fuel tank doesn't change much in that picture.

If we're not even willing to make the simple changes then yes, we are screwed.

by agnostium | 25th Oct 24, 11:31am 1729809102

Exactly, we will not willingly do it.

It will be forced upon us and we will be unprepared.

Because we are in denial that we can maintain our current lifestyle, that is not an option.

by BlackKrim | 25th Oct 24, 12:57pm 1729814279

"I seem to be having this tremendous difficulty with my lifestyle".

by Pa1nter | 25th Oct 24, 7:53am 1729796003

Shhhhh, you'll make us feel bad

by kiwikidsnz | 25th Oct 24, 7:54am 1729796062

Having roughly 3B people/35% of the world's population between them is also relevant.

by Pa1nter | 25th Oct 24, 8:06am 1729796792

Until you see how much of the population there lives, compared to someone in the west.

Just as a for instance, a typical Kiwi household has 2 cars. There's 1 car for every 12 households in India.

And their households have twice as many occupants.

by kiwikidsnz | 25th Oct 24, 8:31am 1729798303

I've been to both countries a few times: not to dispute your comment - the extremes are also more obvious than the averages compared with NZ.

by Pa1nter | 25th Oct 24, 8:45am 1729799104

The average is the average though. Our car ownership per person is around 50x that of Indias.

Their consumption levels per head are a fraction of ours, and much of our stuff comes from there. We're the bulk of the problem.

by powerdownkiwi | 25th Oct 24, 9:01am 1729800117

Agreed; a large portion of Chinese and Indian 'pollution' is traceable to our insisting on 'cheap' stuff. We cannot afford our own wages, so we pay others less (slavery by any other name, colonisation ditto).

But I'd point out that 3 degrees is feed-back-loop territory, so a meaningless number - might as well be 6. And it will be sooner than projections, as all passed markers have been thus far.

We are in big trouble - but don't worry, we're back on track.

Translated - we weren't sapient enough, to avoid the pitfalls of partial sapience...

by Zwifter | 25th Oct 24, 9:40am 1729802453

Translated - we are just plain stupid. 3 Degrees is positive feedback territory, its pretty clear that the projections are simply not accurate as the modelling is too hard to do. What is likely however is its going to be worse than forecast, probably because we don't want to panic the people.

by Hemi Waipiro | 25th Oct 24, 9:49am 1729802985

"but for that brief moment in time we created a lot of VALUE for shareholders!" Lol, don't know who to attribute it to, but laughed when I read it. We're digging a deeper hole, literally and metaphorically.

by M0ralHazard | 25th Oct 24, 9:57am 1729803423

It's from here originally

https://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995

by Foxglove. | 25th Oct 24, 9:04am 1729800296

As commendable as it might be even if NZ became 100% plus the world leading nation in control of emissions it will not protect the nation from the onslaught caused by the activity by the giant industrial nations. Your point is of course fully valid but in the face of that stark reality, it would be foolhardy not to commence setting the defences however possible.

by Pa1nter | 25th Oct 24, 11:01am 1729807306

NZ is just as example.

Everyone's in the same race, we know it ends badly, but fear the ramifications of dropping out of it.

by GoWokeGobroke | 25th Oct 24, 6:50pm 1729835428

@ Pa1nter - If you feel bad for India, & feel guilty for having such a luxury, you could always do the noble thing and gift your car to a family in need in India? Problem solved.

But why stop there? Why not gift your house as well? After all, capital gains is bad right? Or is it only bad when select people do it?

Heck, why not just give everything you have to a family more in need in India? After all, their lives matter more than ones own family right? If you feel bad for families who are just surviving, and you can admit you are not just survivng but living, then you could set the example and give up your financial position for the greater good of another family.

No? See there's a difference between just surviving life, & really living life. If life is just about surviving, then no one need more than the basics. But what a boring life that would be. For many that's the case, that is their reality. The rest, who sit there saying "poor them, I wish there was something we could do", when tasked with giving up their financial position, they kindly pass. Manipulative guilt. We feel sad for "poor people", but in reality, none of these hypocrites would give away their home when they no longer need it, they all want top dollar when selling, no one need be an investor to expect top dollar for their property. No one's giving away cars to starving kids in India either.

Unless your prepared to live by example, charity first, and put someone else's family financial wellbeing before your own (a provider oputs their own families needs first), I'd just be glad that your in such a fortune position, and don't take it for granted. Or better still, next time your annual holiday comes up, spare a thought for the 12 families in India with one car, maybe instead of living it up large in Italy for the Instagram likes, one could instead put ya money where your mouth is & travel to India to help out in some community programme. Certainly more rewarding.

by powerdownkiwi | 25th Oct 24, 7:48pm 1729838903

Blaming human overshoot

is no excuse for pursuing growth.

Hardin's Lifeboat Essay was penned a long time ago...

by Advisor | 25th Oct 24, 8:06am 1729796819

A good analysis into how mass migration is worsening skill shortages in Australia. Link

51% of migrants in Aussie work in unskilled jobs three years after graduating with a bachelor's degree or higher and only a third get into high skilled work.

I am sure the numbers would be materially worse if someone cared to crunch those for NZ. Also, the article says a net migration rate of 1% of population is unsustainable. That rate is literally considered a slow year for the population Ponzi scheme here in NZ.

by Pa1nter | 25th Oct 24, 8:07am 1729796849

Do you have the relevant comparison for an Australian graduate.

by Advisor | 25th Oct 24, 8:17am 1729797420

It's in the article. A migrant graduating with a postgrad coursework qualification earned 30% less than an Aussie grad on average in 2022.

A separate study I saw also suggested that migrants were more incline towards qualifications on the skill shortage list (technology, engineering, etc.). Makes sense since they reckon it increases their chance of landing a job and staying in Aus permanently via special residency visas. Therefore, the wage gap is concerning.

by Pa1nter | 25th Oct 24, 8:23am 1729797807

It's in the article. A migrant graduating with a postgrad coursework qualification earned 30% less than an Aussie grad on average in 2022.

Yeah I can only see the income disparity in the article.

by GoWokeGobroke | 25th Oct 24, 7:03pm 1729836205

@ Advisor - So anotherwords there's a big difference between academic education and financial education. You can have a fancy bachelor's degree and still be financially illiterate. Having a fancy degree doesn't gatantee financial success, or a high paying job, or that having a high paying job keeps more money in one's pocket, especially when we tend to spend more as we earn more.

A good lesson, Universities don't teach financial education, they do not teach how to become financially independant. Universities teach how to become a good employee and how to work for someone else.

I am sure the numbers in NZ of those with fancy degrees working in unskilled jobs would be very sobering. Given that this information seems difficult to find, gives a bit of a clue. For if many knew that "financial sucess" is not related to a degree at university, you think more people would stop going to university. How many people are at university to actually learn vs those who were just sold the lie by their lecturer that all they have to do is give 3 years of their life away for financial freedom of a big high paying corporate job that the fancy degree gives you? Now that would be another sobering statistic to find out. Do people go to uni to actually learn, or because they think it'll make them rich?

There's a reason why financial education was removed from the school circuculum. More money doesn't solve money issues, if money management is the issue. Someone who earns triple digits but spends most of what they earn is no better off than someone who earns minimum wage & keeps most of what they earn. Anotherwords it's about what one keeps, not what one earns, that makes all the difference.

by Kate | 25th Oct 24, 8:14am 1729797284

An updated UN report shows that we have essentially run out of time to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Adapt we must but, in a way, it is perhaps a good thing if the international focus/effort goes off anthropogenic CO2 emissions reductions and onto adaptation to a naturally changing climate instead. As one example of atmospheric CO2 research suggests;

Present human CO2 inflow produces a balance level of about 18 ppm. Present natural CO2 inflow

produces a balance level of about 392 ppm. Human CO2 is insignificant to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Increased natural CO2 inflow has increased the level of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Edwin X Berry. Human CO2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO2. International Journal of

Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences.

Vol. 3, No. 1, 2019, pp. 13-26. doi: 10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13

That is not to say the climate is not changing;

A review of the geophysical literature reveals that a number of environmental systems changed

rapidly in 1995 or shortly thereafter. A sudden jump in mid-ocean seismic activity initiated a cascade of changes to the thermohaline circulation, global temperatures, snow and ice cover in the Arctic, monsoon dynamics, El Niño characteristics, and dip pole movement. Acting in concert, there is a high probability that these changes drove global temperatures higher and have enabled global temperatures to remain elevated for the past 24 years.

Arthur Viterito, 1995: An Important Inflection Point in Recent Geophysical History

Int J Environ Sci Nat Res 29(5): IJESNR.MS.ID.556271 (2022)

But my point is, it would be a good thing to start dealing in the real/hard data world, as opposed to the projection/scenario world.

by Whatwillhappen | 25th Oct 24, 8:32am 1729798349

I for one would like the government's focus to be on resilience/adaptation to climate change rather than emissions reduction (it's more pragmatic than significantly reducing our quality of life for extremely marginal CO2 reductions on a global scale). The government hasn't made much noise about it though, because it's also expensive.

by agnostium | 25th Oct 24, 10:08am 1729804110

I think you are in for a rude awakening. Resilience/adaptation is 100% going to result in reducing our quality of life (in the sense that I think you mean quality of life e.g. consumption of goods and services).

Personally I don't necessarily see that as a reduction in quality of life. Less travel, less stuff isn't all that bad. The issue will be whether we go down the route where things get levelled down or whether the super rich try to hold on to what they have and everybody else gets even worse off. I hope for the former, I suspect the latter.

by M0ralHazard | 25th Oct 24, 8:34am 1729798481

"it is perhaps a good thing if the international focus/effort goes off anthropogenic CO2 emissions reductions and onto adaptation to a naturally changing climate instead"

We need to walk and chew gum at the same time. It is not good enough to only do one or the other.

And for someone who is obviously quite intelligent based on your previous posts, I would have thought you would more critically examine stuff from someone like Edwin Berry

by Palmtree08 | 25th Oct 24, 12:28pm 1729812482

"IPCC’s Bern model artificially traps human CO₂ in the atmosphere while it lets natural CO₂ flow freely out of the atmosphere"

Jesus! It just goes to show bollocks even turns up in science journals! What a pointless collection of nonsense! Of course CO2 produced by human burning has exactly the same effect as CO2 respired by an antelope living in the Serengeti. This is hardly a revelation! The point the geniuses authoring this article conveniently ignore, is that the natural flows of CO2 are in balance, it's the human contribution that's frying the planet, building up in the atmosphere! And no, it's not EXACTLY the same CO2 molecule from Kates exhaust pipe that ends heating the atmosphere, it could be the antelopes, but that's irrelevant!

To balance the CO2 cycle, perhaps we should kill off all animal life that contributes to the CO2 cycle? We could continue burning geological carbon and remain within budget?

Didn't have you down as a climate denier Kate?

by Kate | 25th Oct 24, 3:54pm 1729824876

Not a denier of CC at all - but definitely a denier that offsets were ever going to be any kind of mechanism that got anywhere in reducing atmospheric CO2. .

So, if the globe goes the way of getting off that ETS/carbon/emissions reduction/trading bandwagon all the better. Had we been focusing all our efforts on conservation of finite natural resources and energy efficiency initiatives, instead of giving ourselves an excuse to carry on consuming and polluting - I'm sure we'd be much, much further down the track of adaptation.

The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997. What's that... nearly 30 years and trillions of dollars in international meetings and symposiums; development of national carbon accounting systems; development of carbon trading systems and associated regulatory development and passage of instruments and tools... in other words, massive money/energy/effort?

And just think, we could have started back in 1997 in the phasing out and subsequent banning of all single-use plastics. Instead we and our descendants bodies and every animal and plant and seabed on earth are now full of microplastics - their unavoidable by-product.

What makes you think the human species itself will survive that unintended consequence of ignoring what really matters with respect to our current lifestyle for the last 30 years. Sure, some plastics are needed as there is no substitute, but where clothing alone is concerned - we have for centuries and centuries prior used natural fibers to clothe ourselves. And don't get me onto fizzy drink - let alone the bottles it is packaged in.

I'm just saying we've spent all this time on the wrong debate/conversation.

by blobbles | 25th Oct 24, 2:33pm 1729820025

Carbon trading has always been and will always be the wrong choice.

Like I have been saying for a few decades, we should simply tax carbon at low rates to start with, and keep ramping it up.

by Kate | 25th Oct 24, 4:12pm 1729825954

Yet a tax on carbon may or may not reduce our consumption/use of finite energy resources. As pdk points out, our money/debt system is made up of tokens that represent energy use that will never be under-written; never be re-paid. Tax is just a part of that system and it takes time to take effect via changed behaviour..

Only a guess, but if we (i.e., the global collective) had used regulation to design-out certain high-energy/oil/petroleum input products - starting with plastic packaging and plastic materials for clothing (low fruit in my opinion) - the resources stay in the ground for the us and next generation(s) to use for the manufacture/doing of things for which there is no renewable energy alternate.

I'm not against tax, but more for regulation as a means to make us more sustainable and the planet more hospitable.

https://daily.jstor.org/fashion-forward-three-revolutionary-fabrics-gre…

by blobbles | 25th Oct 24, 5:03pm 1729829025

No. The problem with alternatives is they are more expensive than fossil fuel derived, throw away products we use now. So they never gain traction from a consumer perspective. Think nappies, there are great alternatives using wool etc than our plastic derived ones, but they can't be produced in enough quantities to be effected by economies of scale, because they are so small and niche... so we just keep using the fossil fuel derived versions. If those FF derived ones were more and more expensive every year, the others would grow in popularity and eventually reach the point where economies of scale drives them to be the cheapest alternative. Yes, there would be some tough years there for a while, but we would come out the other side using sustainable products with lower FF footprints. Especially if the tax were used to provide subsidies to the alternatives, which they should.

Same thing we currently seeing with electric cars. When the government taxed gas guzzlers in NZ and subsidised electric cars... what happend? Electric cars took off, even though they were more expensive. Now they have economies of scale and their prices are dropping dramatically. Then the current numpties came in and removed the tax/subsidy situation, now electric cars are nowhere near as popular for purchasing.

Price signals through taxation and subsidies are the only way we are going to switch our consumption to better alternatives, as shown repeatedly by governments taxing undesireables and subsidising desireables.

The only problem with this is that we are about 40 years too late, so we are forced to design out now, but would be even harder to implement than a carbon tax. Basically because the country that decided that they weren't going to design out products would have a higher quality of life than those that were more responsible. While the same could be said for a global carbon tax, it would be easier to isolate those not complying and reverse tax them via tarriffs for their exports/imports in a globalised world.

by GoWokeGobroke | 25th Oct 24, 10:38pm 1729849115

@ Bobbles - So, the most powerful governments in the world can't solve homelessness, but they can change the earth's temperature if you pay more taxes? Lol Drunk the coolaide hook line and sinker. Tax ourselves to financial prosperity eh? You first.

"Isolate those not complying"

Nazism is highly discouraged in western countries, for power corrupts. Lets face it, with language like that used above, all the buzz words straight from the socialist hand book, you don't really want to have an impact on the weather, this is clearly about control, not climate change. Climates change. No one denies that. But thinking you can control that simply by just paying more taxes to disencourage behaviors you deem to be unacceptable? That's not an advocate for climate change, that's nazism. You want control over people's behaviors, people's individual rights to choose what they do, what they consume, what they buy, what they drive. This isn't about climate change at all, it's way past that, it's about control over people.

You may find more solace in places who actively practise isolating & removing the non compliant & non obedient such as North Korea & China.

They told us in 1960s - Oil would be gone in 10 years

1970s - another ice age in 10 years

1980s - acid rain would destroy all crops in 10 years

1990s - the ozone layer would be gone in 10 years

2000s - ice caps would be gone in 10 years

None of those things happened, but all resulted in more taxes. If you really believe this government propoganda, put your money where your mouth is & tax yourself to financial prosperity whilst you feel like "a good citizen" for having done so, all because the TV told you to. If it works, maybe the rest of society might just be dumb enough to follow suit.

by blobbles | 25th Oct 24, 11:05pm 1729850746

This sounds like a massive conspiracy theorist rant with a whole lot of mixed up ideology. Hell, lets accuse people of being Nazis and invoke Godwins law early on huh?

Government taxing bad things and using that tax to subsidise good things is a proven method to change behaviour. Its happening all around you from tobacco and alcohol taxes to subsidies for people to start businesses to healthcare and charitable work subsidies. The WTO isolates countries not complying to international trade agreements, but I suppose they are Nazis or something too? It's hilariously idiotic that you would believe that this equates to Nazism.

by Palmtree08 | 25th Oct 24, 6:18pm 1729833529

That is a really dodgy reference.

Offsets are just greenwash to keep BAU bubbling along, with the finance industry clipping the ticket. In saying that, there needs to be carbon pricing. It's got to hurt polluters, it needs to be distributed to those storing other peoples polluting emissions and it needs to change behavior.

by General Comment | 25th Oct 24, 8:16am 1729797364

Fortunately, New Zealand is in a relatively good position (or less-bad position).

*Looks out at crops struggling under cloudless skies, then towards hills already browning off, in October*

Going to get tougher then. I guess we could eat...dirt?

We're already building resilience options but also starting to assess alternate crops that can survive droughts whole also making it worthwhile to continue. Ah well, the edge of town is creeping closer...

by Foxglove. | 25th Oct 24, 8:26am 1729797975

Relatively minuscule but we had to go to an artificial grass lawn. Last year started to dry/brown off in October by summer it became a disgrace and this year looked no different. So be it.

by Pa1nter | 25th Oct 24, 8:42am 1729798924

I tried keeping a lawn for a couple years, then decided I'd rather use the water on my trees and gardens.

by Foxglove. | 25th Oct 24, 8:57am 1729799845

Same here in truth. We have a couple of raised vege garden beds which drain out fast. A good layer of straw helps but you need to like black birds too.

by Zwifter | 25th Oct 24, 9:52am 1729803143

I'm watering my raised garden after dark every night. The weekly rainfall currently is non existent (I have a weather station) and most vege's like lots of water. 0.7mm of rain so far this week, basically zero.

by The Person | 25th Oct 24, 10:42am 1729806135

I find drip irrigation works wonders. Cheap and simple, and gets the water directly where it's needed so very little evaporation

e.g https://shop.irrigation.co.nz/collections/drip-irrigation/products/ceta…

by Whatwillhappen | 25th Oct 24, 8:50am 1729799430

You should have just gone with full dandelions. Cheaper, and stays green for longer than grass

by agnostium | 25th Oct 24, 10:13am 1729804388

Personal lawns are really quite bad for the planet, they are a status symbol originating in the English elites, the artificial lawn is just kitch wannabeeism.

A style of English garden developed, where a prominent feature is a green lawn. And right away, everyone recognized that these soft, verdant grasses were more than just a nice outdoor place to walk around barefoot.

A lawn was about power. It was a way for these English elites to show off that they were so wealthy that they didn’t need their land to grow food—they could afford to let their fields go fallow, and could afford to keep grazing animals and scythe-wielding peasants to keep it short.

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/lawn-order/

by Palmtree08 | 25th Oct 24, 12:40pm 1729813211

Yes, I relish the sense of power my lawn gives me. Hope any visitors are awe struck.

by Palmtree08 | 25th Oct 24, 12:37pm 1729813061

Artificial grass? Just another unnessessary source of microplastics. Once that colour fades, it'll look disgusting too. And don't set it on fire with the BBQ? Or maybe it's infused with PFAS flame retardant?

by Zwifter | 25th Oct 24, 1:24pm 1729815851

Only got artificial lawn myself, I love it and its been down for 10 years. No winter mud and it instantly drains. The only downside with it is that it can get too hot to walk on in the summer so it would need a quick spray with the hose if you wanted to let pets safely on it.

by Palmtree08 | 25th Oct 24, 1:39pm 1729816767

The industrial look doesn't appeal to my eye. I enjoy my lawn and it changes with the seasons. At the mo it's lush and green with abundant daisies. It will burn off, but that's natural. The important thing is it's a fire break between us and the vegetation beyond.

by Foxglove. | 25th Oct 24, 4:05pm 1729825553

Certainly better than concrete or asphalt. Hard to believe it would be thought preferable for a household to ignore having a lawn area of some nature for children & grandchildren to play on & any other of the traditional family activities for that matter.

by kiwikidsnz | 25th Oct 24, 8:22am 1729797774

I don't know where you live however I drove Wgtn Auckland return twice in the last 2 months and I've never seen NZ greener.

by General Comment | 25th Oct 24, 8:28am 1729798098

Hawkes Bay. You stayed to the west of the Ruahine and Kaweka ranges that block a lot of rain from getting to the eastern areas. We've had 22mm of rain since August here. It was green back then, yes.

by JimboJones | 25th Oct 24, 8:39am 1729798763

I live in Auckland and our lawn is looking a little brown. Its certainly not dry yet, but it does seem drier than normal and I suspect it could be pretty bad by the end of spring.

by Pa1nter | 25th Oct 24, 8:27am 1729798041

*Looks out at crops struggling under cloudless skies, then towards hills already browning off, in October*

What sort of crop?

by General Comment | 25th Oct 24, 8:30am 1729798239

Legumes.

It must be bittersweet for PDK to see this morning's comments focused on the bigger issues for a change.

by powerdownkiwi | 25th Oct 24, 9:13am 1729800815

Nah, it's wonderful - late, but wonderful.

In practical terms, we went for glasshouses built over insulated raised beds (down here it lengthens the shoulder seasons. That deals with birds too - mostly :) The old-timers this far south, used to use horse manure (there was a lot around) under their glasshouse soil every spring; the heat of decomposition hastened the planting date. We sometimes do that. Shade is usable too; overhead in our glasshouses are grapevines; they shade what is underneath more and more as summer progresses.

We do timer-dosing, though I'm playing around with raised toilet cisterns; tap-controlling their fill-rate, then rig them to self-empty by pulling theor plug with their own ballcock. Not quite there yet...

Bird-netting for fruit-trees and berry-areas is often available 2nd-hand ex horticulture; they replace it well before it disintegrates.

by Threecents | 25th Oct 24, 8:27am 1729798060

No doubt we will need to adapt to climate changes. However David's use of 'Game Lost' seems appropriate - the science is unreliable.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/climate/al-gore-said-the-ice-caps-would-be-gold-by-2014-yes-2014/

by nightstalker | 25th Oct 24, 9:06am 1729800388

Since when is Al Gore a scientist???

He's a politician, which means his job is to convince people to believe, like a pastor in church.

The science has evolved a lot since 2009 but the general premise laid out in the 70s has been proven beyond doubt.

by The Person | 25th Oct 24, 10:29am 1729805344

> In 2014, IPCC Fifth Assessment Report indicated a risk of ice-free summer around 2050 under the scenario of highest possible emissions.^[32]

The "Some models" that Al Gore referred to may be got it a bit early, others thought later, but we are certainly heading that way. Check out the 1500 year graph...

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-cha…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_sea_ice_decline

by Palmtree08 | 25th Oct 24, 12:54pm 1729814099

Got to love the way denierville lies so blatantly, without any sense of irony.

A quick scoot over to your reference and we find Gore actually said "Artic ice cap COULD be gone by 2014". Denierville seems illiterate enough to be confused between could and would, but I doubt that, it just makes a better meme, to lie.

by Threecents | 25th Oct 24, 5:00pm 1729828837

Yee gods – yes there is a difference between would or could. However Al Gore makes a statement that is not even close to being correct and he gets a free pass.

by Palmtree08 | 25th Oct 24, 6:11pm 1729833107

Why focus on Al Gore? Why not the liars trying to convince us destabilising our planets climate 1) isn't happening, 2) is happening but not because of us, 3) is happening, caused by us, but can't do anything about it, or 4) it is us, it'll be great.

Yes there is a huge difference between would and could. Like the difference between probability and possibility.

https://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_iqr_timeserie…

by bw | 25th Oct 24, 8:48am 1729799339

If a lower OCR was THE last opportunity in the foreseeable future to minimise any Debt dependent activity, then perhaps this will be the reason why:

"If Donald Trump wins, tax cuts and tariffs mean stronger inflation ( = higher CPI), higher yields ( = higher mortgage rates), and a much stronger US dollar ( = a lower NZ$ making the previous two point even worse)"

https://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/major-australian-warning-over-2024-go…

by nightstalker | 25th Oct 24, 9:01am 1729800087

Fortunately, New Zealand is in a relatively good position (or less-bad position).

How so??

Atmospheric rivers, draughts, wildfires, the collapse of eco-systems won't make halt at the gates of NZ.

We are in the shit like everybody else and there will be increased pressure of these events plus everything that comes with it like climate migration, shocks to the economic system due to supplies literally breaking away.

by powerdownkiwi | 25th Oct 24, 9:17am 1729801061

The irony is that an economic system based on endless growth was in terminal trouble even without a changing climate.

Resilience is an easy word to say.. I remember someone recounting being at a village fair and telling another that he was 'self-sufficient'. "No you're not, you're here" was the reply, and it's about right.

by Beanie | 25th Oct 24, 9:54am 1729803289

Self sufficient just helps you to live cheaply. But in the system collapse you keep saying is coming with attendant population die off, the life expectancy of occupiers of self sufficient lifestyle blocks is likely shorter than a starving townie with nothing.

by agnostium | 25th Oct 24, 10:02am 1729803758

If you play through what a collapse would actually look like in practice, it's completely implausible that people will stay in cities starving to death if there are self-sufficient lifestyle blocks that have access to food. People will just come and take the food. There will be no-one to stop them.

This plays out on a global scale too, no-one is going to leave a small indefensible country that produces excess food to just live on in a relative bucolic utopia while their population starves. If it reaches that point we will be taken over, most likely by China, possibly Russia.

by Pa1nter | 25th Oct 24, 12:54pm 1729814080

Very long over-water logistics train to do that.

by mfd | 25th Oct 24, 9:19am 1729801181

Relatively is doing a lot of work in that sentence. We are lucky in that our country won't actually become uninhabitable (well, some of the coastal bits might).

Meanwhile, countries that are already struggling with persistent heat problems will be in trouble when another couple of degrees are added on top.

by agnostium | 25th Oct 24, 9:55am 1729803322

We 100% rely on external imports to maintain our standard of living, other areas becoming uninhabitable due to climate change will potentially make our country 'uninhabitable' as well, because disruptions to supply chains will mean we will not have access to those imports anymore.

by Palmtree08 | 25th Oct 24, 1:32pm 1729816353

After energy disruption, fertilisers will be the biggy. Phosphate and potassium in particular.

We can only hope the invisible hand will ride in and as Julian Simon pointed out with copper “Don’t worry,” he said, “if it’s ever important, we can make copper out of other metals.”

by agnostium | 25th Oct 24, 3:59pm 1729825151

I've read we will also start running out of sand, asphalt and more tragically topsoil.

by Palmtree08 | 25th Oct 24, 6:23pm 1729833828

The amount of top soil NZ loses is horrendous. Sand and asphalt, more an impediment, an inconvenience to BAU. I wouldn't be so concerned about those.

by agnostium | 25th Oct 24, 9:51am 1729803110

Auckland Council tells Simeon Brown to F*** Off.

I wonder what ploy Simeon will use against AC? He will not be able to use the rabid green narrative he's peddling in Wellington to try to undermine the democratically elected Council. AC is more balanced and if anything more right-leaning, the fact the meeting was headed by Desley who is the partner of former National party president means it will be hard for him to blame 'lefties'.

It just goes to show what a f***wit Simeon is and what happens when you put a career politician who has no real life experience and whose policies consist of culture wars trolling into a position of power. That is on Luxon, almost universally acknowledged now as the worse National leader in living memory and beyond.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-council-ignores-government-to-ma…

by The Person | 25th Oct 24, 10:36am 1729805770

Council sticking it's own priorities, a rare piece of good news, thanks.

Love this quote:

Hills said: “So the Government is giving us only $6 million for road safety but we might have [an unfunded requirement] to spend $12 million to make our roads more dangerous?”

by agnostium | 25th Oct 24, 11:39am 1729809560

That policy right there demonstrates why Simeon is such a tool. It's ideology over evidence. He is literally directing via ministerial mandate for Auckland Council to spend millions undoing work they have done to make roads safer and despite the fact AC has the evidence to prove those safety improvements worked.

He is literally forcing Auckland ratepayers to pay more for their rates for projects that will injure, maim and kill more Aucklanders. And there is no economic benefit or productivity benefit to doing it, none.

by Palmtree08 | 25th Oct 24, 1:06pm 1729814798

No benefit? The benefit is Lord ICE gets to maintain its primacy. Intimidating society with its brute force and keeping community fractured and dehumanised. Back on track.

by agnostium | 25th Oct 24, 3:59pm 1729825189

My bad, you are 100% correct. Apologies.

by Cobolt24 | 25th Oct 24, 11:25am 1729808706

In regard to saying about Simeon "undermining the democratically elected council"

WCC was not able to pass a LTP as that was dependent on the airport share sale. they did not even have a back up option. In the LTP they're using rates revenue to pay for water infrastructure. That's approx 94% of infrastructure funded through rates! It's well and truly time for an observer at least.

by agnostium | 25th Oct 24, 11:57am 1729810648

Nope 100% wrong. They haven't set their final LTP yet. You have drunk Simeon's cool aid, you need to do better.

An LTP is an iterative process. It goes back and forth. Council's have to make assumptions on what funding they will get from govt for parts of the plan and Govt only confirms those after council's have been out to consultation on their plans.

Nothing Wellington has done is inconsistent with setting their LTP. What Simeon has done is very very inconsistent with local democracy and he has done it because he doesn't like the democratically elected council's policies.

by BradJ | 25th Oct 24, 9:54am 1729803250

Emissions - the Paris Accord woolly woofer PC’ers gave India and China the right to increase emissions so they could happily keep polluting to “catch up” to the West development stage as it was deemed “not fair” that they were behind. Bugger the planet.

by Palmtree08 | 25th Oct 24, 10:08am 1729804085

India and China have a lot of catching up to do with Dodge Ram owners setting the pace with their rolling coal lifestyles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHmJSsRLgj4

by Zwifter | 25th Oct 24, 10:23am 1729805001

Yep pretty much assholes are the only people that own those and people wonder why I only ride in the garage.

by agnostium | 25th Oct 24, 11:41am 1729809717

Yep and those same assholes are the ones trying to make ratepayers pay more to change the parking infrastructure to fit in their massive cars. Less parking, more expensive parking because some dickhead has a tiny penis.

by Te Kooti | 25th Oct 24, 11:56am 1729810607

or, alternatively, they have to tow > 3 tonne trailers.

by agnostium | 25th Oct 24, 12:00pm 1729810842

I don't think even you believe that. Have a look next time you're on the road at who is driving the massive Utes. There will be the odd tradie but even they aren't pulling a 3 ton trailer. Very few women driving them, I wonder why? 🤔

by Pa1nter | 25th Oct 24, 12:53pm 1729814026

Because there's 7x more men in construction.

And if you have a need to tow a trailer that heavy, you're probably not doing it all day, every day. Just as a Welder won't be wearing a mask all day.

by Te Kooti | 25th Oct 24, 1:34pm 1729816488

Doesn't even need to be a trade, can be boats and caravans. Those cars are built to tow, it's why they are selling so well in Australia where you can buy all the US trucks now. They used to use 70 series Lancruisers, now it's Ram, GMC, Ford etc. Toyota is even going to release the Tacoma there.

by Pa1nter | 25th Oct 24, 1:50pm 1729817404

I remember Niwa copping a lot of flack for owning Rams.

The standard domestic utes like a Hilux or Ranger can't tow their boats.

Maybe agnostium would prefer they'd move up to something that needs an HT license.

by agnostium | 25th Oct 24, 4:04pm 1729825455

Because there's 7x more men in construction.

So you would expect to see a ratio of 7:1 men to women Ute drivers. Count them up champ and let us know what you found.

Just as a Welder won't be wearing a mask all day.

I think this undermines your argument. The point is they are driving their Utes around all day.

by Te Kooti | 25th Oct 24, 10:30am 1729805423

Seems perfectly fair to me. Stop buying their products if you feel that strongly about it? No, thought not - in fact no one here is going to stop consuming directly, or indirectly, Chinese products. Also, if we don't buy their products, they will stop buying ours. Have a little think about what that might mean.

by rastus1 | 25th Oct 24, 9:58am 1729803488

Profile enter the room.....we need this emission report debunked!

please

by blobbles | 25th Oct 24, 2:35pm 1729820123

He will post an article that agrees with it, but cherry pick a quote from it that appears to disagree, then be like "SEE! Science says it isn't happening!". Profile has done this so many times, I am sick of debunking his debunkum.

by Palmtree08 | 25th Oct 24, 10:03am 1729803815

"we have essentially run out of time to cut greenhouse gas emissions." There's no physical line here. If 3degC is off the table we better make sure less than 3.5degC is still in play.

Lets hope economic growth isn't affected. /sarc

by ChrisOfNoFame | 25th Oct 24, 11:37am 1729809420

You can still have economic growth while the global economy is adjusting to lowering its collective carbon footprint.

by powerdownkiwi | 25th Oct 24, 2:10pm 1729818610

NO, YOU B WELL CAN'T.

AND YES, I'M SHOUTING.

Chris - you've had enough put under your nose by now, to know better.

by the Joneses | 25th Oct 24, 11:26am 1729808768

This annoyed me. The Act party complaining about police response times, while at the same time axing 250 roles in the police force. They were all standing around doing nothing apparently.

Meanwhile, Act MP Dr Parmjeet Parmar said security on buses and trains was regularly raised as a concern and the attack had validated fears in the worst possible way.

“The attack comes a week after I wrote to Auckland Transport to convey the concerns raised with me by a bus driver who was assaulted at work last month.

“In that case, it took 40 minutes for police to arrive, and even at that point no medical aid was provided. The Government is progressing changes to the Sentencing Act and bringing back Three Strikes to deliver tougher sentences for serious crimes. But more needs to be done to ensure safety on public transport.”

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/onehunga-bus-attack-man-arrested-after-fa…

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/almost-250-police-jobs-cut-commi…

by Grattaway | 25th Oct 24, 1:28pm 1729816125

Except it was only 42 jobs that were actually going and the Head of Police said they were all corporate roles

Personally I wouldnt use Granny Herald as a sorce of facts but it was in the article if you read past the headlines

by ChrisOfNoFame | 25th Oct 24, 11:33am 1729809185

An oft overlooked issue with global climate change is the fact that it'll spark mass human migration from what were once were arable lands but can no longer support the people that were living there. Every country, including NZ, will need to accept more of these displaced people. While many will grumble about this, those doing the grumbling need to accept they are in fact part of the cause.

by M0ralHazard | 25th Oct 24, 11:38am 1729809487

I think it will more likely lead to wars rather than just grumbling

by bw | 25th Oct 24, 11:40am 1729809616

Or more people will die off, and as we have started to do in many places, stop being reproduced as a result.

by agnostium | 25th Oct 24, 12:09pm 1729811357

The number of people that will need to die off to make way for the loss of habitable habitat will make both world wars and the black death seem like minor events. Enter Frank's solution ...

When resources were scarce Inuit elders used to say their goodbyes and go for 'a long walk on the ice' to help the family ... Older New Zealander's are instead going on energy and resource intensive flights, cruises, buying SUVs, and taking up 4 bedroom homes close to city centres ... what a contrast.

by blobbles | 25th Oct 24, 2:38pm 1729820292

Fortunately, New Zealand is in a relatively good position (or less-bad position).

No, we are not. When we get millions of climate refugees arriving uncontrolled/uncontrollable via commandeered oil tankers, we will suddenly realise there was no place to hide. But hey, maybe the penguins will have us.

by Zwifter | 25th Oct 24, 8:39pm 1729841965

While this is true, they still have to get here so our isolation will buy us time. It really depends on what we do with this time and how aggressive our response will be to illegal immigrants. If we just take the typical softly softly be a nice Kiwi approach that we have with everything, then we are doomed. I suggest we harden up rapidly and start getting an attitude like the Australians.

by blobbles | 30th Oct 24, 11:04pm 1730282680

It takes a few days to a week for any decent sized ship to get here from say Bangladesh. In a climate emergency, comandeered boats at port could easily form a fleet of them and we have almost zero possibility of stopping a fleet of boats coming ashore. What do you think we would do? Send our only manned Navy frigate out to sink them all? You reckon the captain of that vessel will open fire on boats loaded with children because we haven't got our act together to sort out a hundred thousand refugees or so? Is that what we are hoping for here?

Then they would run aground anywhere along our shorelines and simply walk into the country. Nothing can really stop that from happening.