The climate change debate and potential solutions thread

Thread Rating: 3 votes, 5.00 average.
(3 votes)
Results 2,951 to 2,975 of 3283

  1. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    This is the fundamental problem, we are shooting ourselves in the foot as we strive to be seen making a difference - yet it costs us. While in reality we achieve no visible difference in the global numbers.

    Our best option is to maintain our prosperity while developing green alternatives and better technology.
    And because this argument exists all around the world, not enough gets done.

  2. Post
    With a large consensus of countries working together, you'd probably find the value and market for argicultural products sourced using less emissions would be greater than from someone who thinks we should wait and see but feels we should be greener.

    We can see the same phenomenon occuring across multiple industries.

  3. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    And because this argument exists all around the world, not enough gets done.
    Trouble is if we destroy existing industries, without viable alternatives, 100,000s will be made unemployed, which I doubt you will want either. And yes the increase in dairying in Canterbury, etc was not good, but we need to think of the future not cry about what happened in the past.

    However, what is your alternative? Where are the 3rd-generation industries people can move into? Where are the re-education funding to get new skills for 3rd-generation industries? Where will the funding come from to pay for this industrial transformation?

    So yeah, pointing out all the bad things we are doing is all well and good, but unless we have a path to this new 3rd-generation economy, you're just saying "That's bad, stop that", instead of "Here try this now and we will support your change"

    As for my voting Green, I selected them for the main reason of getting the millennial generation into power sooner. These are the people who will find the solutions to problems that I outlined above and not people like me. My focus is on preparing the next-generations to cope in the new world and help them be smarter and find solutions.

  4. Smile
    KiwiTT wrote:
    As for my voting Green, I selected them for the main reason of getting the millennial generation into power sooner. These are the people who will find the solutions to problems that I outlined above and not people like me. My focus is on preparing the next-generations to cope in the new world and help them be smarter and find solutions.
    You are 100% correct about the next gen of young people...

    Why you ask? well climate change is an old problem brought about by old ideas and stuff,
    The next gen of young people know all about climate change (i think) and have new and innovative ideas on how to solve these problems.

    I mean a 60 year old in power will keep doing the norm, A 20 y/o in power like those in the greens have completely different ideas on how to solve the challenges we face in 2019/2020 and in the future.

    We don't want to continue doing what we are now, We need change.
    Glad we have Jacinda but i think NZ first is holding her back a bit.

  5. Post
    It's beneficial to be seen as part of the solution rather than part of the problem for a variety of reasons, regardless of our nominal footprint.

    We can't exactly join in the chorus of calling out the Americans and Chinese if we're not doing shit ourselves.

    Aside from that, it's the moral thing to do.

  6. Post
    KiwiTT wrote:
    we need to think of the future not cry about what happened in the past.
    Correcting the mistakes of the past can possibly guarantee the future. If you think we should just start from our position now, and only change any possible increases from today’s positions, then we’re all dead.

  7. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    Correcting the mistakes of the past can possibly guarantee the future. If you think we should just start from our position now, and only change any possible increases from today’s positions, then we’re all dead.
    I did not say that did I. We need to reduce over time.

  8. Post
    You did say it, it’s a quote from your post.

  9. Post
    gneiss wrote:
    You did say it, it’s a quote from your post.
    Agree to disagree. The problems with online debates.

    We really need to undo a lot of old habits, and dairy expansion is just one of them. Meanwhile the problem remains what are the alternatives and how to get there without wrecking peoples lives and livelihoods. Unless of course you think we should do that ... which I doubt you do.

    So as an aside you have the $10 billion Climate Change budget. What amounts would you give to each area that needs attention?
    Last edited by KiwiTT; 12th February 2019 at 11:29 am.

  10. Post
    It seems to me that we do need to make an adjustment to people’s lives and livelihoods. That’s uncomfortable for some, but it’s reality. Wrecking all lives is not what needs to happen. Continuing the strive to all have Ferraris and million dollar stock portfolios is what will wreck thngs.

    As for me coming up with an answer for the world, if the answer was easy it would be done already. I’ll throw something out there for you though.

    Imagine if the governments around the world could agree to spend the annual combined military budgets on green tech? Even for just one or two years.

    There are some cool things happening which could be implemented everywhere. One of the US cities (can’t remember which) has just installed small turbines in the city water pipes. The water flowing to houses and buildings is now generating electricity. I saw another vid of new wind turbines that have vertical blades and operate in conjunction with each other meaning that for the same ground area as one big Wellington turbine, you get 10 times the energy from a group of these smaller ones. Things like these are very cool, but they need to be implemented. Budget constraints due to spending on things that won’t save us all might just wreck the lifestyles that people so desperately want to cling on to.

  11. Post
    Yeah we can all imagine what we could do with the military budgets and rich buggas lifestyles. But seriously tho ... you diverted the question. How would you spend a $10 annual billion budget for climate change?

    Here's mine?

    1) Nationalise Fonterra again and manage farming industry better - $5 billion
    2) $1 billion on re-educating people in polluting industries
    3) $1 billion to cover welfare for people transitioning to new industries
    4) $2 billion for implementing green ideas like you mention above
    5) $1 billion for adaptation preparations for what we know is coming so far

    See, not a cent needs to go offshore on a stupid carbon credit trading system.

  12. Post
    Your question was added in while I was writing my reply, so I never saw it. Yes, I took a while to write it, I’m watching Interstellar.

    As for your budget, I don’t think like that sorry. As I said, I’ve got no globe saving solutions, so spending an imaginary budget is pointless, and unprovable outcomes aren’t how my brain works. Just like when my wife asks me and the kids what colour we would be if we could be one, my brain doesn’t work like that so I’ve never answered.

  13. Post
    But would you agree we need to spend any of our climate change budget locally?

  14. Post
    For the world to change, the world needs to spend in every country that pollutes.

  15. Post
    The only chance we've got is to butcher each other like hogs.

    Or maybe release a killer virus like the Black Plague.

    Either would be good.

  16. Post
    Quasi ELVIS wrote:
    It's beneficial to be seen as part of the solution rather than part of the problem for a variety of reasons, regardless of our nominal footprint.
    How is it beneficial exactly?

  17. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    How is it beneficial exactly?
    You deleted the part of the quoted post you're asking about.

    Quasi ELVIS wrote:
    It's beneficial to be seen as part of the solution rather than part of the problem for a variety of reasons, regardless of our nominal footprint.

    We can't exactly join in the chorus of calling out the Americans and Chinese if we're not doing shit ourselves.

    Aside from that, it's the moral thing to do.
    State of it.

  18. Post
    What Vulcan sounds like in here sometimes

  19. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    How is it beneficial exactly?
    I get the feeling you spent a lot of time in the lonely corner of the sandpit at kindy.

  20. Post
    bradc wrote:
    I get the feeling you spent a lot of time in the lonely corner of the sandpit at kindy.
    Sounds like you have sand in your vagina, again.

  21. Post
    GaR wrote:
    You deleted the part of the quoted post you're asking about.

    State of it.
    There is still no tangible benefit. Saying we can call out the yanks and chinese (and india) is just wishful thinking. Do you really think those governments gives a toss what we think?

    Neither China nor the USA policies are influenced by NZ. Jacinda can get up and make fancy speeches but a week later the administrations have forgotten her name already.

    Gneiss at no point am I saying it's going to be OK (and it's disappointing you keep doing that considering what I've typed in the last few pages, maybe it's a symptom of the religion. What I am saying what we are doing now is a wasted effort and we can focus on other things (like cleaning up our own back yard, developing resilient green tech, planning for the changes and so forth).

  22. Post
    I did say “sometimes”

  23. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    Sounds like you have sand in your vagina, again.
    Well I don't know, you've said in the past you don't know how empathy works and you don't seem to grasp the value in compromising, the power of co operation, and the benefit of leading by example.

    But yes, vaginas and sand. If it were 15 years ago you'd probably be calling me a homo. Evolve you ape.

  24. Post
    Vulcan wrote:
    Gneiss at no point am I saying it's going to be OK (and it's disappointing you keep doing that considering what I've typed in the last few pages, maybe it's a symptom of the religion. What I am saying what we are doing now is a wasted effort and we can focus on other things (like cleaning up our own back yard, developing resilient green tech, planning for the changes and so forth).
    So just to round up and be super clear, for the most part you agree with anthromorphic climate change, including NZ's culpability across various industries. But because of the political impasse and issues with the width and breadth of response, we should build a moat?

    That's not to Pooh Pooh that view, it's just you argue against the science so regularly.

  25. Post
    Well really anything less than a total restructuring of society across the entire globe is a 'wasted effort'.