By Chris Trotter*
In the era of drones and Artificial Intelligence, how hard can it be to provide an accurate count of protesters? Knowing how many Aucklanders were willing to make the effort and join the Greenpeace-organised “March For Nature” on Saturday afternoon (8/6/24) would make the calculation of its significance so much easier. If the figure of 20,000 offered by some participants is correct, then the turnout was good, but not spectacular. But, if the old rule-of-thumb which reckons that if Queen Street is tightly-packed with protesters, from Aotea Square to Britomart, then you’re looking at turnout well in excess of 30,000 citizens – then that would be an excellent result.
In earlier times, reports of Britomart filling-up as Aotea Square was still emptying-out would have sparked estimates of 50,000 protesters – a monster march. Certainly, some of the photos taken on Saturday have that look about them. Either way, Greenpeace deserves a solid pat on the back for its ability to mobilise its supporters.
But, does any of it matter? Because even a march of 50,000 protesters, out of an Auckland population of 1.5 million, would struggle to satisfy the definition of a “revolutionary crowd”. To get some idea of what that looks like, check out the huge demonstrations overwhelming the Hungarian capital, Budapest, in the run-up to the EU parliamentary elections. (6-9/6/24) It’s been a while since New Zealanders turned out in those sort of numbers for a political cause – although the School Strike 4 Climate demonstrations of 2019 came close.
The answer to the question “Does any of it matter?” delivered by Resources Minister, Shane Jones, less than 24 hours after 20,000-50,000 protesters marched down Queen Street, was brutal: “Government to reverse oil-exploration ban.”
The decision to cease oil and gas prospecting, announced by Jacinda Ardern and Meagan Woods in 2018, ranks as one of Greenpeace New Zealand’s proudest achievements. By reversing that decision, almost before the paint on the “March For Nature” placards was dry, Jones and his Coalition colleagues were telling Norman, Greenpeace, the Greens, and all the putative defenders of “Freddie the Frog”, that they could stick their placards where the sun don’t shine. The only slogan registering with “Matua Shane”, for the foreseeable future, will be Sarah Palin’s fossil-fuel classic: “Drill, baby, drill!”
“Natural gas is critical to keeping our lights on and our economy running, especially during peak electricity demand and when generation dips because of more intermittent sources like wind, solar and hydro,” said the Minister. “I want a considered discussion about how we use our natural resources to improve the security and affordability of energy and resources supplies, stimulate regional economic development opportunities, and increase New Zealand’s self-sufficiency to protect against volatile international markets.”
But, “considered discussion” isn’t really on anybody’s agenda at the moment. Jones has a long-standing and deep-seated contempt for the people he dismisses as “greenies”. In 2014 he told the NZ Herald’s Claire Trevett that “he once told Labour’s leadership he would not be a minister if he was ‘second fiddle’ to [then] Green co-leader Russel Norman as deputy prime minister or in a senior economic role.”
That contempt continues to be passionately reciprocated by virtually the entire environmental movement. Unsurprisingly, the response from Greenpeace to Jones’s media release was blunt:
“Shane Jones is dreaming. The oil exploration industry won’t risk coming back to Aotearoa because they know that it’s not worth coming all this way to fail again”, sneered its spokesperson (and seasoned exploration disrupter) Niamh O’Flynn. “For nearly a decade under the Key Government, together with iwi and hapū the length of Aotearoa, we fought tirelessly to push oil company after oil company out of the country and we succeeded. Oil and gas won’t win in Aotearoa.”
The political parties responsible for the original ban, Labour and the Greens were no less direct:
“Minister Jones is hell-bent on ignoring options of energy that are future-proofed and up to global standards,” said the co-imposer of the 2018 ban, Labour’s Meagan Woods.
“This is a manufactured crisis. We know there are reliable and cost-effective energy sources available to New Zealand that can be used without destroying the country. New Zealand is being taken backwards. This government is being cruel to future generations, this will take decades to undo – if the damage can be undone at all.”
Green Party co-leader, Chloe Swarbrick, was equally uncompromising:
“The science is clear that fossil fuels must stay in the ground to limit global warming within 1.5 degrees of warming. This Government’s actions are anti-science and show a flagrant disregard for international climate commitments which could lead to huge costs down the line.”
Swarbrick also had words for the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon:
“The climate crisis is the defining issue of our time. If Christopher Luxon is unwilling to look in the mirror and deal with the gap between his rhetoric and the reality of his government’s actions, the least he could do is face up to the New Zealanders he’s selling down the river.”
What, then, is the explanation for the Coalition Government’s confidence that neither the environmentalists’ political rhetoric, nor their feet on the street, pose a serious threat to the Coalition’s electoral chances? The answer is bound-up with Jones’s conspicuous reference to “keeping the lights on”.
National, Act and NZ First have convinced themselves (or allowed pollsters and focus groups to do the job for them) that a very large number of voters have a great deal in common with those raised-in-the-faith Catholics who genuflect reflexively before the holy imagery of their religion without giving the gesture much, if any, thought. Like conservatives the world over, New Zealand’s Coalition Government is of the view that although, if asked, most ordinary voters will happily mouth environmental slogans, considerably fewer are willing to freeze in the dark for them.
Minister Jones’s wager is that if it’s a choice between watching Netflix, powering-up their cellphones, and snuggling-up in front of the heater, or, keeping the fossil fuels that power our extraordinary civilisation “in the ground”, so that Freddie the Frog’s habitat can remain pristine and unmolested, then their response will be the same as the Minister’s: “Bye, bye Freddie!” No matter what people may say; no matter how superficially sincere their genuflections to the “crisis” of Climate Change; when the lights go out, all they really want is for them to come back on again. Crises far away, and crises in the future, cannot compete with crises at home – right here, right now.
The Transport Minister, Simeon Brown, knows how this works. Everyone supports public transport and cycle-ways, right up until the moment their holiday journey slows to a snail’s pace among endless lines of road cones, or a huge pothole wrecks their new car’s suspension.
Idealism versus realism: that’s the way the parties of the Right frame this issue; and they are betting their electoral future on the assumption that the realists outnumber the idealists. There may well have been 50,000 pairs of feet “Marching For Nature” down Auckland’s Queen Street on Saturday afternoon, but the figure that impresses the Coalition Government is the 1,450,000 pairs of feet that were somewhere else.
*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.
141 Comments
Luxury beliefs have, to a large extent, replaced luxury goods.
Luxury beliefs are ideas and opinions that confer status on the upper class, while often inflicting costs on the lower classes.
https://www.robkhenderson.com/p/status-symbols-and-the-struggle-for
From what I saw it was just a protest about anything March. Silly treaty posters, Palestine flags, greenie nonsense. These guys don’t even have a coherent consistent message and probably flagging support so they all band together and moan as one. The real protest was last year at election time when half a million or so who previously voted labour, voted for the coalition to do exactly what they are doing. So, that huge number that carried out their legal protest, (and did so quietly with disrupting everyone else and generally stinking up the place) gets to decide, and they have.
Dwarfed by China's total of US$890bn investment in clean-energy sectors in 2023 alone - and growing rapidly.
NZ can choose to waste public money addressing today's problems with last century solutions, or invest in proven viable, long-term, clean/green solutions. We can't afford to do both.
China operates scientifically and pragmatically when it comes to deciding on the energy mix it needs to achieve its societal and economic objectives. So while China does indeed spend up big on renewable energy it is also spending up big on thermal fired generation and nuclear to fulfil baseload requirements.
"We know there are reliable and cost-effective energy sources available to New Zealand that can be used without destroying the country."
Not sure where they conjured up cost effective. Wind requires very high capital cost because of huge overbuild requirements. Solar needs expensive batteries.
No , it was firmly centered on the fast track legislation. They probably would have got a lot more young ones along if the brought in more issues that resound with them. it wasn't just greenpeace , forest and bird took a major part, and several coalitions that are trying to save specific sites. of course there were a few Palestine flags and posters , but most were on point.
The real protest was last year at election time when half a million or so who previously voted labour, voted for the coalition to do exactly what they are doing
No one voted for "the coalition". You can be sure that there are National voters (and MPs) that are extremely disappointed NZ First ended up in a power sharing arrangement.
And the Fast-track Approvals Bill is driven by NZ First (you can see it in the coalition agreement). I doubt National are particularly thrilled about it since it's clearly unpopular.
But getting into bed with NZ First was the price they paid for getting into power.
Sadly what is far more effective is direct actions and collaboration amongst politicians with consensus as a means to effectively make change. When protests take on aspects of us vs them they are often shown to be the least effective then directly working with people to establish pathways forward.
It is why lobby groups with incredibly tenuous and sometimes fraudulent studies backing them are far more effective in making changes to govt policies and department procedures then protests. Why those in departments & leading them hold more effective power then politicians who act as mostly the marketing face of departments. Why it is far more effective to contact and speak with MPs in government directly to solve issues individually during a constructive session of collaboration then just those you favour who are in opposition. Hence why for critical issues (e.g. ones that can result in death) it has been more effective to provide options and solutions in a direct manner to both MPs and department heads with an air of lobby consultant status behind, or have children with you to create a feel good story for MPs.
For example the collaborative approaches to bill to allow euthanasia, gay marriage, clean car tax etc, or the direct contact methods for any immigration or medical issues which are primarily only fixed on an individual basis and never broadened to fix the exact same issue in most the population who do not have direct media or MP access. An example this govt is also why a direct line of contact and collaborative approach with Act MPs made a huge difference in their policy for medication this time around. The tax lollipops though for property investors though was more self serving, which highlights another key point. The most effective actions are when you are not only collaborative but can appeal with MPs on an issue they would be affected by & benefit from or direct family would. Hence why policies for retirees are always a guarantee, why any changes to benefits for those over 65 even far into the future when most of the baby boom generation is dead (the generation affecting MPs employment & family the most) are a joke.
Us vs Them protesting becomes even less effective for systemic & intractable issues which cannot be fixed with single actions.
This also plays out in Givealittle donating strategies in the wider public. Far more attention and donations are often garnered not for those who do need them the most but instead those who have:
clear media attention with direct contacts,
are apolitical & not directly aligned, with no presence of adversarial tone
who have easy to fix issues with clear solutions pathways that are easy to follow,
who have more feel good bullshit marketing (inspiration porn, kids manipulatively used for marketing, often tailored individual marketing stories, playing to common mass public ignorance or bias)
Hence if your charity run is not using these initiatives it also will suffer from less support. Sadly it often does as the failure rate for Givealittle for life critical needs is exceptionally high & groups who are less about feel good inspiration porn often fail to gain support needed.
Protests using anger are good to encourage membership and create clear division, but the most changes that are hugely effective happen more when playing to the dopamine & feel good factors and direct benefits to those making changes. If you do not have simple solution pathways that are easy to fix unfunded, and have single change/action fixes then it is always going to be less effective then campaigns which do.
the big problem is that interest groups, and most people tend to be extremists when pushing their perspectives. But realistic solution tend to be somewhere in the middle ground. Even listening to Chloe this morning on RNZ, I was disappointed in her position and reasoning. And because of the positions they choose to take, they become captured and unable to accept or even seek some middle ground.
Yeah, those lefties and their crazy ideas - https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2017/12/national-spent-50m-putt…
I am not sure how many judges are left leaning, but thanks, your comment made me realise that the OP was likely talking about central government rather than local government. Though I would have thought local government is more at fault for the outcome of their city centres than central government.
Cancelling the Auckland Light Rail project sure isn't going to help the Auckland CBD though. If we are concerned.
Startling lack of deep understanding of NZ's systematic challenges - and long term vision/solutions in your comments @Jeremyr.
What is it about the Fast Track Bill that you think will address NZ's problems?
Do you understand that fully functional ecosystems and climate are essential prerequisites for a resilient, productive NZ society/economy?
Do you accept the the Fast Track Bill will lead to prioritisation of short-term, pet projects over strategic, long-term, integrated solutions?
The irony of NZ's high use of non-fossil fuel energy ie the hydroelectric and geothermal which the Greens fly their flag behind is that it was formed by using the very 'think big,' fast track policies that the Greens hate.
Also the word 'fast track' is a bit of a misdemeanor, as in most countries, and use to be in NZ, that is just the normal speed of logical decision making.
The left have shown repeatedly, that whatever time they are given to make a decision, it is the wrong one.
Problem we have now is the hangers on and disruptors that turn up at every protest - undermining the legitimate message.
The fast track legislating could lead to some devastating decisions. Think back (if you are old enough). The West Coast Beech forest, Pureora, Whirinaki, Manapouri etc - protestors were seen as a bit nutty at the time, but turns out they were right. How much we appreciate these forests now.
The fringe cults are destroying rational debate/protest.
Coal - get your head around this in China
https://www.google.com/search?q=The+Haoji+Railway&rlz=1C1GCFA_enAU1101A…
This railway line is NEW is not for people, its for COAL
FFS NZ anything we do here is rounding error WAKE UP
Did you look at that video, they just spent 26 BILLION USD on a new train line just to import coal TOO BURN and make power.......
How much coal moves on that line a day PalmTree ?
Everyday to burn and make power.....
LOOK AT THAT TRAIN LINE VIDEO
Its longer then the north island trunk line .... Everyone loves to say you have to start local....
I say why bother if you cannot stop CHINA, what crazy head in sand mentality do greenies have where they can just ignore things like this?
Seems like china uses about 25% more C02 emissions per capita than NZ. And China makes a lot of our stuff for us, so a lot of their emissions are probably ours. But sure, big places with lots of people use a lot of resources.
Your idea that 'the world is going to hell anyway, lets get it over with' could be used in all sorts of ways. Like, look at the plastic in the ocean, why the hell are you using the rubbish bin? But it doesn't necessarily make for good ethics, or better outcomes. Might help you sleep better at night though, if your own affect on the problem can be negated by blaming others.
China will eventually get it, when the problem becomes too great for their attempted economic dominion over physics to handle. Doesn't mean we have to be as stupid, does it? Yes we will suffer the consequences of their burning. We are all sharing the same atmosphere being used as a dump.
There's little we can do about that, except reduce our consumption of the junk they are burning coal to make.
I feel the pain, I have sailed offshore, sliding along at 4-5knots, the world is indeed tiny and the useable atmosphere is only a few km high....
but look at the scale of coal train line use in that damn video.... sorry what we do here will not make a damn difference, and it does not make me feel any better.
Perhaps we should use AI and facial recognition software to scan the crowd and cross reference to vehicles registered in their names, or to flights and departure/arrival information?
How about Jacinda makes her carbon footprint publicly available for scrutiny? I mean, surely after banning oil and gas exploration she would be true to herself?
I am open to listening to both the left and the right, it's hypocrits I really have a problem with and they seem to be far more over-represented within the progressive left.
My favourite example of this was that young woman from the Schools Climate Strike (or whatever it was) a while back, wanting to ban plane travel, who was interviewed on radio only to reveal she had not long jetted back from a family holiday to Fiji. It was perhaps a little bit harsh the conduct of the radio host, but also terribly entertaining.
Of course there are hypocrites on all sides of the spectrum.
Just like those school kids protesting climate change, yet they all still expect their mothers to pick up them after school in the family SUV because biking or taking the bus "isnt cool". Then they grow up and vote for cycle lanes that they will never use, while the rest of us are forced to pay for their virtue signalling.
I'll bite on that.
I'd love my daughter to ride a bike to school but there's too many wankers in my neighbourhood speeding around in Utes and SUVs for it to be safe. So she gets taken to school in an..... SUV because my wife declined the sporty station wagon I wanted to buy because she couldn't see over all the other Utes and SUVs............
A pox on whoever the marketing person was that came up with the idea of selling 4wds to city folk.
As an example of hypocrisy I still cannot understand how the Christchurch City Council one day proudly, piously declares a climate emergency and at the same time commissions construction of a new wide body jet international airport 4 hours drive away in Central Otago. Add to that the environmentally prioritised 6th Labour government with a 25% stake and all about which the guardians of the environment, the NZ Green Party, said exactly nowt. Hypocrisy, blatant and outlandish in my book. Seemingly the new government has declared now find your own money and the whole fiasco has hit the wall which if so, turns out to be a somewhat ironic means to rein it in.
Agree, but self interested ignoramouses are worse. Some of which are the people you mention above, who realise global heating can no longer be denied, but if you apply some marketing greenwash, you can still achieve the goal of riches at the expense of a liveable biosphere.
So yeah, the self interested ignoramouses, have learned how to paint. Can't call them hypocrites, because they always intended to burn from day one.
Because the climate change sacrifices are not to be made by the rich. While the likes of Kim Kardashian flies to Paris for lunch, the rest of the planet's population is expected to sit shivering in their homes during power blackouts to prevent more coal being burnt. Anyway, none of you will be able to afford to even fly commercial soon, as the global elites force airlines to use "sustainable fuels" that cost 4 times as much as normal jet fuel. Tourism will soon be put on the climate change blacklist, making anyone travelling overseas a social pariah in their circles for contributing to the destruction of the planet. Meanwhile the 1% will be enjoying the quiet in the Maldives and laughing their faces off at the rest of you.
surely after banning oil and gas exploration
It was a ban on issuing new permits for exploration. An existing number of exploration permits remain in operation.
Jacinda should simply have capped the number of exploration permits issued/current at any one time to one less than the current number issued. Same effect - better yet - for the ones already issued regulate a use-it-or-lose-it clause for those permits. Then at least we'd get a much better survey of potential across a wider bit of our coastline.
(a) they were probably all school kids who are now rolled out en masse whenever there is a protest
(b) from the photos and videos on X there is a lot of distance between people, they took care to not condense the crowd, moved at a snails pace, all to make it look like there were more people than there really was.
(c) most of them were protesting something else, like Free Palestine. So I think multiple groups just jumped on the bandwagon and werent even there to protest the Govt.
(d) Jacinda made it acceptable to completely ignore protesters. If it was good enough for NZ's Great Leader And One Source Of Truth, its good enough for Luxon.
Can you imagine media without a crisis?
Reminds me of the Ricky Gervais movie "Invention of lying", where media stuck to facts. Boring facts.
“The science is clear that...."
Swarbrick always pulls this trick when she's speaking. "The evidence says" or "the XXX report confirms" amidst a steady line of patter. Remember TV shopping with that English woman who was quick with any product claims?
The issue here is that the audience does not have direct access to this 'evidence' or 'report'. They're just listening sponges. They cannot confirm nor deny from these sources. Swarbrick speaks from a position of all-knowing but it's not clear that she understands the limitations of what she is quoting.
This is how propaganda works from a Western liberal democratic theater. Yes, it borrows techniques from historical propagandists. If anyone doubts me, I recommend you read Edward Bernays, one of the godfather's of modern-day advertising.
Except the science is clear. We are trashing the planet with our heat trapping exhaust fumes.
If a theory is irrefutable, then there is no need for debate. I fully accept that. But to talk in such absolutes is fundamentally un-scientific, particularly in relation to anthropogenic climate change.
I recommend you study Karl Popper whose falsifiability is a fundamental concept in the philosophy of science. A scientific theory or hypothesis is only considered scientific if it is capable of being proven false through empirical testing. In other words, a theory is falsifiable if it can be logically contradicted by an empirical test.
The science is 99.99999% clear. To the unbiased layman trying to work whether human caused global heating is real,
An unscientific statement in itself. Much research shows that human activity likely contributes to global warming and climate change - it does not prove it beyond a doubt. Read Popper. It might change your life. F'more, the models that attempt to 'predict' future global warming and climate change through modifying human behavior are limited as they cannot account for all independent variables.
Swarbrick may be able to rattle off emotional connection and triggers, but she does very little to encourage people to think about the issues in a constructive manner.
Swarbrick may be able to rattle off emotional connection and triggers, but she does very little to encourage people to think about the issues in a constructive manner.
Now give me your take on Shane Jones comments this morning. Seeing as we are holding the politicians to such high levels about constructive discourse.
OK, if you want the issue of human caused global heating constipated by your attempts at intellectual gymnastics and a bit of cut and paste, go for it. How do you ever leave your house when you could be struck by an asteroid any moment? Uncertainty is a b!tch.
I imagine the fact that despite the ease with which the science of human caused global heating could be falsified, that it hasn't been, strongly suggests the scientific consensus is spot on!
I imagine the fact that despite the ease with which the science of human caused global heating could be falsified, that it hasn't been, strongly suggests the scientific consensus is spot on!
You say that a Popper position suggests that one could be hit by an asteroid therefore don't go outside.
Then you say that the existence of anthropogenic climate change cannot be disproven. That is correct.
So what's next? Cancel all flights to Fiji except for essential business and govt travel?
I knew someone from the Maldives. In the late 1990s she was convinced that her home and in fact her entire country would be submerged underwater by now, some three decades later. In actual fact the land are of the Maldives is actually net increasing and the holiday resorts there instead of being inundated by cyclones and floods, are doing great business after COVID. Lesson: even when scientists get things right they might still be wrong by decades or centuries.
Oh no, anthropogenic global heating can be disproved. Goodness knows the denial industry has spent enormous resources on doing just that. The best explanation they come up with is fairly dust high in the atmosphere. The religion of exponential growth just can't seem to get its head around the fact humans aren't the centre of the universe. Physics applies to us as well. Galileo sowed seeds of the enlightenment, but the institutional PTB are still fighting for the dark ages.
The science is 99.99999% clear.
You've mistaken institutional ideology and political dogma for science. They aren't the same thing. Meanwhile the planet today is literally the closest it is has been to nuclear armageddon in the last sixty years but none of you planet-saving greenies seem to give a damn. Which really makes me wonder why the green religion cares about so much about the planet ending in one to two centuries time but completely ignores that it could be radioactive ash in ninety minutes.
It reminds me in a way of the old Bewitched TV show whenever Prince Charming made an appearance. He spoke nothingness dazzlingly eloquently and the women hung rapturously on every word and the men asked “what’d he say.” Of course in Chloe’s case it is more believer and unbeliever.
"Why are we"? Have you seen a picture of planet Earth from space? Notice it is round? All the land/ocean, all the resources we will ever have are right here, right now! Musk may fantasise about living in a cave on a desolate radiation soaked, dimly lit world, millions of KMs away, but that is a fantasy!
"They" are not talking degrowth for the same reason you are not. They are small picture thinkers.
China is involuntarily degrowing now. The rest will follow. Because....... finite planet.
From what I can tell, the Auckland protest seemed well-attended (of course the exact number of attendees or ballpark estimate seems to vary depending on whether you are pro or anti any given protest). Hard to deny that at the very least there was a decent turnout.
Interestingly, down here in Chch there seemed to be bugger all people in attendance. I saw some promotion on platforms such as Reddit, but not much uptake.
I'm not a fan of the proposed Fast Track legislation, but I'm also not going to turn up to a protest that in its marketing "spiel" - and in the flesh - seemed to roll in too many disparate interests. For example, I fail to see what the conflict in Palestine/Israel has to do with Fast Track legislation in NZ, and I'm not comfortable with the idea of my presence being used as some sort of measure of solidarity for an issue that is far more complex than supporters of either side wish to admit (and where both "participants" seem to be as bad as each other ... just one happens to have more sophisticated weaponry)
Yep. I could go to the super rugby final in two weeks time. There will be 50000 people there. I am guessing it will be the Brumbies and the Hurricanes...but if I was to turn up with my Crusaders flag, my Highlanders hat, and my South Africa shirt on and start shouting for a team that isn't playing I would look like a total idiot.....just like these protestors.
Wasn't surprised to to catch the "free free Palestine" chant in the last 2 seconds of the 1News segment https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zy1nbb2RNjg
Attended by people who have nothing better to do...
NZ is a blip on the global environment scale and do not even register - most of our own ozone depletion is from coal powered power plants overseas that are fueled by mining operations in south america and australia
I'm for protecting the environment, but there are bigger issues that remain unresolved that are impacting society that are simply being ignored because of this left leaning sign waving... thinking its making a difference
How about crime? or family law? larger social issues that are resulting in declining marriage and birth rates and related increases in social services? or the brain drain? that ultimately mean we're not even replacing ourselves internally?
yeah...crickets... instead we want to waste time and energy waving pickets...
There are bigger issues.....than survival?
As long as the deaths and suffering are somewhere over the horizon, correct?
"Authorities in Pakistan on Tuesday urged people to stay indoors as the country is hit by an extreme heat wave that threatens to bring dangerously high temperatures and yet another round of glacial-driven floods."
"It’s the latest climate-related disaster to hit the country in recent years. Melting glaciers and growing monsoons have caused devastating floods, at one point submerging a third of the country."
https://apnews.com/article/pakistan-heatwave-warning-schools-flood-clim…
According to the headline above this was a Greenpeace for Nature, what has that got to do with Palestine? as tragic as that situation is on the other side of the world...
I'm struggling to see relevance to the protests purpose or intent
As noted above global pollution has been exacerbated primarily by overseas countries... we are a blip on the pollution scale due to our measly population and industry in comparison to other countries
It's safe to unwring those hands and come out from under the bed Palmtree.
"Why 'weather porn' should be substituted with the truth about disasters
...Data show climate-related events like floods, droughts, storms and wildfires aren’t killing more people. Deaths have dropped precipitously. Over the past decade, climate-related disasters have killed 98% fewer people than a century ago.
This should not be surprising because the trend has been evident for many decades, although it rarely gets reported. A century ago, in the 1920s, the average death-toll from weather disasters was 485,000 annually. In 1921, the New York Herald headlined its full-page coverage of droughts and famines across Europe with “Deaths for Millions in 1921’s Record Heat Wave.” Since then, almost every decade has seen fewer deaths, with 168,000 average dead yearly in the 1960s and fewer than 9,000 dead each year in the most recent decade, 2014-23."
https://www.thetelegraph.com/opinion/article/why-truth-weather-disaster…
The overnight elections in Europe are a great illustration of Chris's point. The people have had enough of the high power prices and shortages, attacks on their farmers, mass immigration and the FU attitude of the smug "know it all" EU elites. There's been a huge swing with the Euro Greens, in particular, taking a pasting.
People don't tend to vote for people that hate them. Funny that.
Correct. Wanting to see the end of humans either as an entire species or just the end of human civilisation as a whole is a different kind of nihilism. BTW Europe chose to cut itself off from ample inexpensive and reliable gas and oil supplies from Russia, then chose to ignore the USA destroying strategic German gas infrastructure. The European predicament has nothing to do with over-population.
Guess some people value doing what's morally right over being slave to yet another butchering maniac? I take it you're using "reliable" in it's loosest possible definition?
Germany heard you. It sure dragged it's heels on cutting it's umbilical to mother Russia.
Burning through your resources to generate as much wealth, as quickly as possible, was always going to lead to shortages. Yeasty behaviour at its finest. Europe was the first continent to hit the resource wall, hence its reliance on other also depleting resources to maintain it's overshoot. Not looking so pretty now though, is it?
You have some evidence who blew up Nordstrom?
As demonstrated by the fact that the Greens have been in parliament for nigh on thirty years yet the electorate has not trusted them sufficiently to place them formally in any cabinet. That is obviously of considerable frustration which in turn is inciting some rather unprofessional and nasty conduct, internally and externally.
The Greens sincerely think that they are morally and intellectually superior to everyone else. People like that can have serious ethical faults due to believing that they are beyond the judgement of ordinary folk. Hence when you hear of their MPs bending rules for their mates and partners, repeatedly thieving boutique items or using illegal labour, one shouldn't be surprised at all. In fact I would be surprised if it weren't just the tip of the iceberg.
"The Greens sincerely think that they are morally and intellectually superior to everyone else."
As do the Nats, ACT, Labour, etc. Don't they all?
Um ... What was your point again?
Oh Right. You think your world view is morally and intellectually superior to theirs.
Its all a bit academic really. The reality is the current lot will get 2, probably 3 terms and then get biffed out for the other lot to take charge - say another 7 years on average by the time the bill gets passed.
If I was going to start exploring I'm looking at 10 years min to find, develop and commercialize any finds - maybe longer. I maybe wrong but I don't think anythings been discovered and commercialized since around 2000 anyway.
The risk of the other side getting in and stopping me in my tracks is high so better to go elsewhere. Also its all for NZ use and what if its cheaper to import it? or build more Geothermal? or batteries?
They are not even using their existing
exploration permits, haven't for years . Boils down to economics in the end. NZ to small and too far away.
I would think most of the protesters are not to worried about gas exploration, which AFAIK is not slated for any fast track. It's coal and gold mines in environmental areas, and sea bed mining that are the real issues. Gas gets brought up by the pro mining lot because it is relatively clean and beneficial, the Greens got sucked onto responding, in a way.
It’s not just the Chinese though is it and that’s the rub. It is difficult to summon up much trust in any environmental assurances by conglomerates of any sort and/or nation, given failures evident all around the planet, when the basic goal is their enrichment from extraction of minerals of any type.
Green dilemma. Do you get your lithium from fracking water or rape and pillage South America?
"Decarbonatization initiatives have rapidly increased the demand for lithium. This study uses public waste compliance reports to estimate total lithium mass yields from produced water (PW) sourced from the Marcellus Shale in Pennsylvania (PA). ...Statewide, Marcellus Shale PW has substantial extractable lithium.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-58887-x
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25333710-200-lithium-fields-beau…
Fast Track Bill demonstrates the startling lack of deep understanding of NZ's systematic challenges - and long term vision/solutions in National/NZ First approach.
The Fast Track Bill will do little to address NZ's problems - and almost certainly create more than it solves.
Fully functional ecosystems and climate are essential prerequisites for a resilient, productive NZ society/economy.
The Bill will lead to environmental degradation and prioritisation of short-term, pet projects over strategic, long-term, integrated solutions.
In doing so, NZ will further alienate international investors, misallocate public funding and undermine productivity growth.
Sorry none of this makes sense. What is a "fully functional climate"? What "international investors" are looking to prioritise "strategic, long-term, integrated solutions"? Apart from management consulting sales jargon what does all this actually mean? NZ's main systemic challenge is the fact that we are still entirely wedded to a failing western hegemonic and ideological system which can no longer compete on the world stage. You didn't mention anything about that, strangely.
I wonder what the price of thermal coal will be in 20 years time??. I would think we'd be struggling to give it away. So not much point in developing new coal mines.
Oil, maybe 30 years till its not worth much, gas might be longer, given much of it is a byproduct of oil production. But I'd imagine methane taking over a lot of its demand, simply because we have to deal with it.
so fast china just built that train set... FFS
have you seen that video google it
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2215370681919137
this thing is nuts, watch it, will move 200 million tons of coal a year
now how do we make a difference again if they can do this?
A little bit of a grating read for a Trotter opinion piece, which is quite possibly due to the fact that the whole article is based on false premise and so logically fatally flawed.
"There may well have been 50,000 pairs of feet “Marching For Nature” down Auckland’s Queen Street on Saturday afternoon, but the figure that impresses the Coalition Government is the 1,450,000 pairs of feet that were somewhere else."
To assume that those not on the march ALL support, and therefore "impress" the Coalition Government's attack on the environment, is patent nonsense.
No wonder he has built such a strong RW following.
Perhaps the new Slater at a time when deflection created outside government, but managed by the Prime Minister's Department, is quickly becoming the new norm.
The supporters of the ban are certainly correct that the oil and gas folk are not coming back for the obvious reason that nobody will invest the required billions only to see the policy reversed again in just a few years time.
Even talk-show hosts now realise the terrible truth:
You can sort of tell by the language that Shane Jones is using that he might know this too – he’s talking about trying to make it more appealing for investors to come back by giving them really long-term contracts. It’s almost desperate stuff, and I suspect it’s because he can see no one’s nibbling after nine months. And why would they?
So frankly these protests are just for keeping Left-Green voters charged up.
Actually the fact that Shane Jones of NZ First is in charge of this is a tell. Luxon and company either believe in Net Zero as the means to combat Climate Change or are too frightened to argue against both ideas. Either way they’re happy to let Shane take the slings and arrows because it keeps NZ Firsters inside the tent and fools National-ACT-NZ First voters who don’t know the business – while also knowing that the business realities of the industry which insiders pointed out six years ago mean the plan’s ultimate failure, which can then be met with a shrug of “Hey, we tried!” and blaming Labour-Greens.
There are plenty more National MP’s where this guy comes from.
Another Socialist ratchet win! A big, fundamental decision made by Labour that National couldn’t reverse because it’s-too-hard-impossible-embedded-bigger-fish-to-fry-politically-risky-extremist/fringe-not-centrist-might-lose-power-don’t-you-know.
Meantime reality approaches in the form of brownouts and blackouts, plus the wider, less dramatic decline of our economy as energy becomes more expensive. Young people are getting the hell out of the country already because they can see the writing on the wall that we'll lack the energy needed to create decent paying jobs. The likes of "solardb", "The Joneses", and "Palmtree08" may still be here when SHTF, but their kids won't be and neither will mine.
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.