By Chris Trotter*
Poor James Shaw: He’s the man this government sends out to tell us that the news is still bad. Worse still, he’s the man whose job it is to bring us, if not exactly good news, then at least some reassurance that it’s not getting worse. Notwithstanding the fact that he is New Zealand’s Climate Change Minister, however, poor James Shaw can’t even do that.
Do his colleagues from the Labour Party care? Not enough, apparently, to make the Climate Change Minister a full member of Cabinet. That decision, alone, strongly suggests that not only does Labour not care about the public credibility of the male co-leader of the Greens, but also that it doesn’t really care about Climate Change – full stop.
Why else would they be sending him off to Glasgow with next-to-nothing to show the world from New Zealand? Could it be because they know that whatever the major contributors to Climate Change may say, they’re not intending to actually do very much either? In spite of the Queen’s “irritation” at “too much say, not enough do” from world leaders.
In spite of Greta Thunberg’s caustic refrain of “blah, blah, blah”. Our leaders know that the world’s leading nations cannot afford anything more expensive than “blah, blah, blah” without crippling their economies and/or (if they’re democracies) being thrown out of office – and neither can New Zealand’s.
So, off James will go with nothing in his attaché case but promises to do better – which neither he, nor the Labour Government, are in any position to keep.
Will anybody, apart from the environmental NGOs and a few Climate Change swots, pay much attention to New Zealand’s dereliction? Well, the mainstream news media will certainly huff and puff for a few days. They’ll run Greenpeace’s media releases. They’ll commission plenty of op-ed commentary from the usual suspects. Then they’ll go back to publishing advertisements for SUVs and double-cab utes, and agitating for the “smug hermit kingdom” to re-join the world – especially by air.
“Will nobody think of the planet?!” For those deeply involved in the science of Climate Change, elevated anxiety levels will more than match the rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature. Their concern, however, is not really for the planet, it is for their own benighted species, and its apparent inability to recognise the enormous dangers bearing down upon it.
As scientists, they know “The Planet” has absolutely no thoughts on the matter.
Among under-graduates, the tree falling in the forest conundrum has always been a favourite. Everyone of a philosophical bent has heard it: “If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?”
The answer, of course, is “Yes” and “No”.
A tall tree falling through the air and striking the ground with considerable force will indeed produce the physical effects that the human ear delivers to the human brain as “sound”. And not only the human ear and brain. A timber wolf, whose hearing is vastly more sensitive than any human’s, will similarly register the tree’s fall.
The point, however, is that (as far as we know) only the human brain is capable of formulating the original question. Moreover, only the human brain is remotely interested in the answer.
Planet Earth, which is, of course, our creation – since a ball of rock whirling around its star lacks the self-awareness required to name itself – has undergone numerous and massive changes in its four billion year history. Science tells us that the planet was at one time covered with ice from pole to pole.
At other times it had a surface temperature equal to that of the hottest of hothouses, with an atmosphere so full of oxygen that dragonflies were able to grow as big as seagulls, and lizards larger than a double-decker bus. And, when an asteroid the size of Manhattan struck its surface – leaving a crater as deep as Mt Everest is tall – killing-off the dominant dinosaur species (along with just about every other species of animal life) the ball of rock was shaken, but not stirred. It had withstood bigger blows. There had been other extinctions. Life always found its way back.
Which is where we, the clever apes, enter the story. Or, rather, where the clever apes come up with the peculiar idea – unique to themselves – that they, other creatures, and even the material world in which they find themselves, have a story to tell.
An evolutionary adaptation of enormous utility, it would seem, this ability to insert oneself into an ongoing narrative. The past experiences of one’s long-dead ancestors become preservable – and, therefore, recallable – to the evident benefit of those living in the present. Did the human-beings who lived through the last ice age, when ice-sheets more than a kilometre high extended past the Canadian border, comfort themselves with the inherited memory of a warmer world? Did they pray for the day when the climate would change?
Telling stories about the future, however, suffers from the considerable disadvantage that, unlike stories concerning the past, no one can be entirely certain how – or even if – they will turn out. Human-beings are capable of being motivated by promises of better things to come. They are less prone, however, to invest too much emotional energy in stories foretelling doom and gloom. The phenomenon of confirmation bias leads us to suppose that human-beings believe more readily in stories that have a happy ending.
Unfortunately, climate scientists seem less and less inclined to predict such an ending to the Climate Change story. This is, of course, a problem, since evolution has only equipped human-beings to respond to imminent threats that are within their power to meet and defeat. The howling of wolves will draw the hunters to the perimeter of the firelight. Hitler’s depredations will set the arms factories humming. Far-off threats, decades distant, are much harder to get people excited about.
In the dark watches of the night, James Shaw must know that this baked-in human weakness is more than likely to overwhelm all his plans. That neither New Zealanders, nor the rest of humanity, will take the urgent and transformative action Science now deems necessary to stave-off climate catastrophe.
Perhaps Shaw comforts himself with thoughts of some last-minute technological fix. Or, perhaps, he simply imagines the last surviving human-being looking up into a night sky awash with stars, and weeping, because, in his absence, the whirling ball of rock will not know, or care, how beautiful human eyes had made it.
Or how silently the trees will fall – when he has gone.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
79 Comments
"Perhaps Shaw comforts himself with thoughts of some last-minute technological fix. Or, perhaps, he simply imagines the last surviving human-being looking up into a night sky awash with stars, and weeping, because, in his absence, the whirling ball of rock will not know, or care, how beautiful human eyes had made it".
You are writing the guy off way to early. Labour will need greens to form a government in 2023. Expect Mr Shaw and his policies to become big part of our lives at that point.
You don't really understand the quote at all, do you?
The planet will carry on, with or without homo - only called this by themselves - sapiens.
Shaw's policies are oxymoronic, whether he does or doesn't get control of decision-making. He - publicly at least - seems to subscribe to the UN SDGs - half of which are unattainable in a sustainable scenario. He lauds 'economic growth' - at least publicly. Probably Marama Davidson will become irrelevant as the paradigms unwind, Slaw may well too. The last Green politician who 'got' the Limits to Growth, was Jeanette Fitzsimons
https://www.otago.ac.nz/news/events/otago051704.html
BTW - this is the first Trotter piece in a long time, that I rate; good stuff.
Yes, exactly right powerdownkiwi. It is not the planet that has anything to worry about regarding 'climate change' but the species that currently inhabit it. Earth will be in existence long, long after humans have gone and will be so much better off when these excessively proliferating humans no longer exist. Climate change has been happening since the earth achieved an atmosphere billions of years ago. It is just that it is now happening at a dangerously accelerated pace all because of one overly successful and self-centered species (homo sapiens).
Yes, and it's sobering to realize that 99% of the species that have ever inhabited this earth are now extinct. What makes us Homo Sapiens think we're special?
And interestingly, human's have more in common with ostriches than any other species...they both bury their heads in the sand rather than face reality.
Exactly. Noting also Shaw's announcement today that NZ will increase it's contribution to "poor countries coping with climate change" 4x to $1.3B. The only effective "coping" will be done by those countries many corrupt politicians increasing their offshore accounts & boltholes.
It also should not be overlooked that the worlds countries & leaders did nothing effective about climate change for at least a decade (man made climate effects being well known & publicised since at least the 1980's) - until they first worked out how to tax people for it, showing where their priorities are.
I am hoping Glasgow will be different, and something concrete will come out of it . It won't be awe inspiring , it won't be enough , but it will be some progress.
Perhaps the plan is for Shaw to come back from Glasgow with a stern warning , and Labour to respond with a green package at the next budget . (already hinted at ). The Greens get to claim a victory , labour gets to blame it on them for the reluctants. .
James has a difficult job, this is the message he will probably return from Scotland with: UK progress, nuclear reactors for green energy. Being a climate emergency means it gets to run as mandate here too.
The government is poised to approve funding for a fleet of Rolls-Royce mini nuclear reactors that the prime minister hopes will help the UK reach his target of zero-carbon electricity by 2035.
https://amp.theguardian.com/business/2021/oct/15/uk-poised-to-confirm-f…
A green package may consist of upping fuel taxs by a huge amount. eg Petrol 4 times as expensive. What that would do would be to drive those who can afford it into electric cars and then the govt would have to apply a road user tax to them.
It all boils down to much more cost. A poorer public. More welfare. More debt all round.
Whereas China powers ahead but pushes out their reduction plan to 2060 and beyond.
To start with I wouldn't call Shaw "poor". He actively supports the ETS, a scheme that is solely designed to allow polluters to avoid accountability for what they are doing, pushing the costs on to others. So he demonstrates by his actions that is is far less smart than he thinks he is.
Plus a couple of weeks ago it was identified that China is addressing it's power crisis by ramping up it's fossil fuelled power stations, to produce more CO2 in a week than NZ does in a year. Under the onslaught of news like that Shaw is not smart enough to argue that we should change our strategy to work diplomatically on the major powers to change their ways while we develop a economically viable strategy that provides a future for NZ, and is not just a knee jerk reaction.
And never has he even suggested that our ideological blinkers towards nuclear power, especially the modern molten salt types are crippling us to a regressive path that will ultimately drive NZ back into being a third worls country.
But then he is on a superb pay packet, with his colleagues has lined up for retirement benefits that no ordinary Kiwi could ever hope for, has lots of job related perks, and gets to hob knob with the powerful and influential. all the while achieving what? NOTHING!
Well Shaw is not in cabinet now because the electorate did not provide such a platform. He could have refused the position if he thought it was being demeaned but he is sufficiently streetwise to realise that in 2023 if Labour is to retain power they will have to invite the Greens into cabinet. Perhaps he can explain this to Greta. Mr Totter appears to consider this teenager as being an irreplaceable and infallible requisite expert on every global element. The last identity to be acclaimed as one who knew all that could be known at that time, was Leonardo Da Vinci. It must be of come comfort to Mr Trotter that he has now been able to make him redundant.
Spot on
Leaders do not lead
80% of those who vote do not fell warming and its effects important.
Finally, economics at present and for next 3-5 years in the West and East means fossil fuels remain politically expedient and growth of GDP hard to come by.
so more blah and targets not met
Just like last 30 years
God give me chastity... but not yet
Great piece of writing, thanks Chris.
Perhaps Shaw comforts himself with thoughts of some last-minute technological fix.
Unfortunately, this is how most people tend to rationalise inaction; by convincing themselves that those clever science-types will come up with something to not only save us all, but ensure that we won't be the least bit inconvenienced by having to change the way we live.
My problem with the greens is that all they have to offer is populist policies. They are not based in science or fact. They are dangerous and they are just as likely to do environmental harm if they think it popular. There have been a number of proposals that have come from them that are just plain loopy and would achieve little or no benefit. They are just not facts based.
The only good thing that they ever did was to vigorously oppose the sale of the state owned power assets; and what have they done in that regard since getting closer to the levers of power. Absolutely nothing!!! they could have tried to apply pressure to take back ownership. Same for Labor. The sale after all was opposed by a significant majority of the population.
The poor bugger though. he is surrounded by a gaggle of vociferous harridins who seem more interested in any far left cause going other than the environment. No wonder he looks so hen pecked. The environment would be far better served by a totally new party.
1 Electric cars while the country is burning increasing quantities of coal. This will emit twice as much CO2 compared to the best Hybrids available,
2 Storage batteries in state houses. The total value of the energy stored by these over their whole of life will never be sufficient to pay for the cost of the battery. This compared to the simple alternative solutions of requiring realistic prices be payed for surplus solar power so that it can be simply moved to a house next door or down the road. Or installing solar power diverters so that surplus solar power can be diverted into a houses hot water system.
3 $12 million funding for the private "environmental" school
4 The harbor bridge bike crossing would have taken a huge amount of money that could have been far better spent more meaningfully elesewhere.
5 Light Rail to the airport which I suspect will never get built and if it were would only be of marginal advantage compared to the simple direct solution of a spur line from Puhinui Station
The Spur line does nothing for connecting the communities in the South East, while the Light Rail project is about connecting them. The Airport is just one stop on a very long branch that connects the Southern and Central parts of the city.
Very often things that seem 'simple' are nowhere near as simple as people would like them to be.
Bad green policies:
- anti-nuclear - the only technology that we have right now, that could have prevented a lot of carbon emissions both in the past and future
- anti-gm - an essential tool to enable us to adapt to climate change
- pro-organic farming - higher emissions and lower yields, a good way to achieve a global famine
Sparrow - I'm no green supporter (I'm about sustainability in the physical sense).
But you are wrong, wrong and wrong.
Nuclear power is reliant ona finite resource, and nobody has worked out how the generation who benefit from it, also deal with the wastes (those are left to others, who won't have the energy resource to do so. That's called theft - done knowingly; fraud.
gm is no essential anything - merely a self-justification from an overshot species, to carry on overshooting.
Organic farming is the only sustainable-food method. All else is fossil-energy-derived; many calories to one of food; we're eating our way through fossil energy. Yes, there will be global famine; it's called too many people. Don't confuse that with self-justification.
That's where Rowarth came unstuck
Organic farming relies on manure and compost for nitrogen inputs necessary for plant growth. The manure comes from animals many say need to go, and the compost comes from other productive areas. Not sustainable.
There will be global famine. You are promoting eugenics by another name in the name of the environment god. Well done.
Actually, I tend to look at it the other way. It's growthist technophiles who are promoting a massive collapse of population, with associated human suffering. There are actually other methods for generating N inputs using legumes, although you are probably correct assuming organics can't support the bloated global population as it stands. In saying that, a small plot of biodiverse food production, including fruits, vegetables and small livestock, recycling nutrients, is far more productive than the same area mono cropped, and chemically steralised using artificially generated inputs. Chemical farming relies on finite inputs, so is not sustainable. N produced using Haber Bosch takes H from natural gas (finite), releases copious quantities of CO2(finite ability for biosphere to sequester) and is energy intensive(fossil energy finite). "Ammonia, produced via the Haber-Bosch process, is the most energy intensive commodity chemical, responsible for 1%–2% of global energy consumption and 1.44% of CO2 emissions." You are correct there will be global famine, caused by growthists believing their own propaganda. You are promoting genocide in the name of the invisible hand. Well done.
Plutocracy - How about the ETS settings which subsidize/encourage overseas speculators to buy up good farmland, plant it in pines that will never be cut down then walk away with their carbon credits, leaving us in the regions with no exports , no jobs, no rural communities, reduced biodiversity and a whole lot of pine slash stuffing up our creeks and beaches? Everyone knows this is a lose-lose situation but nobody stops it. The carbon price wrecking ball continues to gather pace - our children will wake up one day in a poor country blanketed by pinetrees and ask "what have you done"?
Exactly right, the problem I've always had with the NZ Greens party is that the environment seems to be most of the time not even their top priority.
I thought Russel Normal wasn't bad, but again he was surrounded by people who's priorities were much more about things other than the environment.
They seem to spend a lot more time and effort in trying to get drugs legalized, or moaning about any other woke causes.
It's a shame we don't have an environmental party that is only about that, and nothing else, and would work with the left or right, as long as the environmental polices were there.
I’m not sure if that is true. I live in a rural area and know quite a few farmers and lifestylers working to improve biodiversity who would never vote left. The environment is a problem that should go across party lines. Many people are sick of the greens focusing on identity politics and drug legalisation. Both issues are worth discussion but hardly top priorities for a “green” party in a time of environmental crises and ecosystem collapse.
I agree the Greens have lost focus. I don't know quite what they are these days? You are correct. The environment should be important across party lines, but the right definitely pay it lip service. Making all the right squeaks, but when push comes to shove, it's more roads, more sprawl, more industry, more immigration, more environmental destruction. I am a farmer myself and I do work on biodiversity and shrinking my footprint. I'd like to vote right, because I am conservative and libertarian by nature, but what I see from the parties on the right, is something I could never vote for, which grinds me. Extractionism and liberty as property rights only, as their primary concerns, are just plain dumb and actually result in the reverse of what they "stand for"!
I agree the Nats definitely need to come to the party a lot more on the environment.
There's no real reason why they couldn't, currently though, with our Greens party as the only green party, there is just no point in the nats going there with them, because environment aside the Greens would still never work with the nats, because they are so far apart on everything else, and our Greens party is all about any and every left wing cause there is going.
If there was a Green party that only focused on that, that would work with the nats if they got their act together, then that could work to incentivize the nats make some serious policy changes in this area.
I don't think that kind of situation is unheard of in Germany, under their MMP.
The Greens have rapidly increasing NZs population in common with Nats. Maybe they could work from their common ground? :-) No one in the Green party has read "limits to growth", or the "population bomb" They are the children of those immersed in neoliberalism for decades. Expanding their voting base to sixteen year olds seems to be their preferred option, while they take for granted older Greenies, or cut them loose.
I don't ever see this greens party working with the nats, NZ needs a real green party, that has that as it's focus and nothing else.
The Greens before the last election publicly stated they weren't even going to consider working with the nats, so clearly the environment is not the major focus for them, despite their branding giving the illusion that it is.
A nicely written piece and possibly the real aim of COP is to save the fortunes of those that have benefited from the global economy..or want to benefit.
The global economy is already showing signs of stress and would be first to fail, mankind will settle back to a medieval lifestyle and wait for the inevitable cooling.
Rinse and repeat…
An argument for some change would be the health advantages of removing pollution in the worlds biggest cities, by use of electric vehicles and nuclear power generation.
Half the people of the world live in cities, I’m sure that self interested plan would reduce global warming, without having to be concerned with saving the world as we know it.
It is interesting to watch the events playing out in USA at this time with Democrats Sinema and Manchin both taking in large amounts of cash (bribes) from vested interests to prevent action that is not in their interests apparently to the disgust of their voters. With these two holding the balance of power this is completely undermining the election result and in it's turn democracy . I suspect this will likely lead to a voter backlash there and probably elsewhere also forcing an overcompensating swing to extremes , this is likely to occur in nz also I believe as frustrated voters swing to extremes ie greens to get the message across. Also you only need to look at oz to watch this playing out with the nationals suddenly softening their rhetoric as they realise their voting base is not onside.
The defenceless Kiwi. Our temperate maritime climate will be highly desirable in the decades to come. Whats the likelihood of invasion by a foreign power in a disintegrated world order within the next 50 years.... ? Wonder if any defence thinktanks are evaluating this potential...
Very high I would think considering the water issues across the middle east and asia:
https://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/military/warning-of-where…
Unfortunately our allies or "friends" aren't welcome to come and help us anyway if they have nuclear powered vessels.
Oh the nativity of our politicians :-(
Ignoring the error in you comment, the only real justification could be if he had some real weight with leaders such as Xi, or Biden, or Merkel (or whoever goes in her stead) to convince them to do much more. NZ emit less in one year than China does in a month, nothing that we do will have an impact, unless we can convince others to do more!
As long as you don't have pretty much full buy-in by a population, climate change/the environment is always going to get voted down (or at least watered down) in the sorts of democracies and self serving economies of today.
Millions of people can express concern, donate money, protest, give sanctuary to Orang Utans, but it just takes one person with a petrol can and a match to destroy it.
We need to make a concerted effort to lower our numbers so there is no demand for more wild habitat loss and environment destruction.
So "science by consensus" is codswollop?? Consensus is exactly how science moves forward. By all means you are welcome to believe in fringe theories but unless said theories can change the consensus they will always remain just that, a fringe theory. Just ask the flat earth society.
Nonsense Calaverite. Science has never moved forward by consensus. Aristotle was pilloried in some circles for suggesting the earth was a sphere! His theory was considered fringe. The flat earth society that you are deriding, WAS the consensus! Science has moved forward because of observation and repeatable experimentation.
Not sure what point you are arguing. As you say science moves by observation and experimentation...which discards old theories and builds the new consensus. Good luck publishing your science textbook based on non-consensus views. Btw there has never been a popular belief that the earth was flat let alone a scientific consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth
The problem in the first place is that we expect governments to be anything other than effete in the matter of making a better world for ourselves. All politicians seem to do these days is virtue signal and tinker around the edges - REAL CHANGE comes from YOU (the person reading this comment!)
so, ride a bike to work, consume less stuff, go vegan, plant some natives etc. You're our only hope.
There is no hope that politicians and governments can or will do what needs to be done to avoid climate disaster and overpopulation (rarely talked about in this context). The only sliver of hope I see is for the AI Singularity to occur in time to institute rational change. One hopes it will achieve humane depopulation (how?) and not treat us as we treat bothersome ant colonies.
"That neither New Zealanders, nor the rest of humanity, will take the urgent and transformative action Science now deems necessary to stave-off climate catastrophe." Is that necessarily true? Or is the problem the wall to wall propaganda we are immersed in, from birth until death? Chris hit the nail here, "Then they’ll go back to publishing advertisements for SUVs and double-cab utes, and agitating for the “smug hermit kingdom” to re-join the world – especially by air". Covid has allowed time to think and some have realised the overwhelming nonsense we have been drowning it, is not their preferred option. Of course big guns like JK have been wheeled out, to prod us back to our mission of extracting the last juice from the planet. Throw in the old divide and conquer strategy of "you are standing on the way of freedom", by not submitting your body to the tools that allow "progress" for our sacred mission, and you have a foaming section of public looking for somewhere to direct their anger.
Are we really screwed though? Or is that dark dread in your soul just the uncomfortable realisation that one day you'll die, and you're conflagrating that with the end of the world. The end is nigh / Climate catastrophe. The concept is perfectly encapsulated by the question "If a tree falls in the woods does it make a sound?" The egocentricity of even asking the question is beyond measure.
If oil output declines significantly then 3 billion people will be having a hard time but I probably won’t be one of them, and neither will most New Zealanders. We have light oil, coal, land, hydropower, and a low population density for now.
We are laying waste to the environment like there is no tomorrow, the Congolese govt has just signed off on massive destruction there, so don't even bother with trying to argue that we are wrecking the planet, and if we make it unlivable it will be unlivable for all. We will not be spared the effect of it.
Nothing dafter than talking of New Zealand as if it is on another planet.
The Greens have lost all credibility because they are in denial about the main factor causing climate change;
I'm of the David Attenborough School which attributes the main cause of climate change to over-population.
I've recently seen it projected that the population of Africa will be over 4 billion by 2050. Not much room left for the animals.
Chris, you probably have never lived in a suburb like Clover Park, South Auckland, where I lived for 25 years and over that time I saw families growing exponentially in numbers, often living entirely on welfare.
I know it's not politically correct to call this out: but overpopulation is the elephant in the room when it comes to climate change. Deep down the Greens must surely know this yet they never mention it. Thus, to my mind they are hypocritical in the extreme. I believe now that the Green Party is as self-serving as any other party with its MPs perhaps even more adept at grandstanding than those of other parties. The moniker "champagne socialist" comes to mind.
I'll go with David Attenborough.
I'd agree. The Greens actively avoid population, but that of course is exactly the position of all other parties. Population is a difficult issue to address, as l'm sure you realise? The opportunities for attack are numerous and difficult to defend, requiring an informed electorate to look through the political grandstanding by opponents. More people means less nature and falling quality of life. You'd think it was simple. Apparently not.
The Greens always had a population policy and it also acknowledged the limits to population growth. I know of no other party with enough votes having anything similar
For a while now if you search 'population' on their site at the moment, it comes back saying they are still working on their full policy, so I am close to contacting them to try to find out where they are with this.
You should find out by contacting them. Of course policy is always evolving and I would be interested what you could find? I have had interactions with some of the shakers and noted media comment by their MPs and to be honest, I was completely underwhelmed by their responses and comment. Labour just added a Hamilton and an Oamaru to our resident population, but it wasn't enough for the Greens. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/453280/massive-divisions-greens-call-for-extension-of-one-off-residence
Long term people get tired of those who constantly peddle catastrophism.
The science provided to back those claims is still essentially post normal. Given they are dealing with a vast open, non linear, chaotic system, the Earth's atmosphere. It's also a very long term stable system. In our human terms all those factors are constant. And calculation, in rational accurate predictable terms virtually impossible.
Is that your expert opinion? The whole issue is as simple as heat in, heat out. Humans have unbalanced the system and now there is less heat out, with the same heat in and a warming climate system. Not sure where you get the idea this isn't a problem, because it already observably is!
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.