Average Joe on Climate Change

My name is Pat Brittenden, I work as an announcer at Newstalk ZB, I have a wife, two children and a cat, I have a mortgage and the bank owns 70% of my house, I am what some define as 'Middle New Zealand', I am the average Joe.

Some would have you believe that “the debate is over” when it comes to mankind’s contribution to Climate Change. My take is that the question is not whether or not we contribute to Global Warming, but if we can do anything about it. I believe two main things. Firstly, that there is nothing we can do to affect global climate change, and secondly, that our government is selling us a lie that will financially cripple middle New Zealand.

The Lie
According to the latest CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center) report commissioned for the United Nations on carbon emissions we know that New Zealand emits 0.1% of the world’s carbon emissions (28,639,822 tonnes). That’s one tenth of one percent of all the carbon that is emitted globally. We know that about 50% of emissions come from the agriculture sector, and approximately 25% from business and industry. That leaves private householders responsible for the remaining 25%. That 25% equals one-fortieth of 1% of the world’s carbon emissions.

Labour’s target is to reduce our carbon emissions by 25%-40% by 2020 and National’s is 50% by 2050. Using National as our benchmark we would halve our one-fortieth of one percent to make one-eightieth of one percent. That means what you and I are responsible for, over the next 42 years, is somewhere between one-fortieth and one-eightieth of one percent of the world’s carbon emissions, per annum. Try and divide that by 4.2 million people. How much difference is your heated towel rail really going to make? If the theory of man contributing to Climate Change is even slightly true, there are only two countries that can make any difference, and that is the USA and China. Together they make up about 40% of the world’s carbon emissions.

National and Labour are selling us a lie. That lie is that we can do something about Climate Change. Even if it was proven that mankind contributes to Climate Change, the amount of Carbon that New Zealand emits is so minuscule that it negates our culpability.

The Hypocrisy
If both major parties are so keen to fight this nonsensical battle, why haven’t they put their money where their mouths are? Why are they not subsidizing the very things that could enable us to reduce our carbon emissions?

Hybrid cars are around 15-20% more expensive than their petrol counterparts. I’d drive a hybrid if they were cheaper…shouldn’t the Government be trying to get us all into hybrids?

Solar Power is very expensive to install. Why?

According to Solid Energy we export around 2,500,000 tonnes of coal. This coal then gets burnt and emits carbon. It is estimated by The Australian Greenhouse Office and other sources, that between 2.4 and 3.7 tonnes of carbon dioxide is produced for every tonne of coal burnt. This is an approximate representation of what New Zealand households are being held accountable for. Our government is expecting private householders to subsidise coal exports.

If the government is truly concerned about Climate Change, then it should be investigating nuclear energy. Even the founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, said speaking to the Boise Chamber in April that there’s no proof Global Warming is caused by humans, but that if it is, the “only viable solution is to build hundreds of nuclear power plants over the next century. This is also the conclusion that the UN came to recently. Patrick Moore is joined by many others who also dispute the connection between humans and climate change. These are highly respected scientists and environmentalists. (see the end of this article for a list of over 40 scientists and their credentials).

It is pleasing to hear that the government will not be putting the 10 cents per litre on petrol, but let me remind you this is a moratorium and come 2011 (or the pessimist in me says come after the upcoming election) the Emissions Trading Scheme on petrol will come into effect. Electricity is also sure to have surcharges, and the flow on effect of this will hit all areas of life.

A Solution
Let me say that first of all, if it is true that mankind contributes to climate change, then carbon trading credits are not the answer. All they do is kid the people who can afford them into thinking they don’t have to worry about their carbon footprint, just pay their way out of it. It’s like teaching our children that they don’t have to worry about their actions, because there’s an easy way to get around it… if they can afford it.

Now, in saying all this, I am not advocating that we have a careless attitude to our environmental responsibility. We must take care of New Zealand for future generations, and this includes being responsible about pollution. I am simply asking the question, “What can we do?”If my Government told us we were fighting a ‘War on NZ Pollution’, I would be in boots and all. I am not a fan of breathing car fumes, and wasting our natural resources makes no sense. Energy-efficiency is an extremely worthwhile cause, but not for a false argument that is unattainable and will cost us all money that we already cannot afford. The irony of it all, is that if we simply wage war on pollution in New Zealand, Climate Change could become a non-issue.

What we need to do is to focus inwardly on what we can do in New Zealand to improve the air we breathe, the atmosphere and the environment here in Aotearoa. We need to fight to protect (if not restore) the world’s belief in a Clean Green New Zealand. That way we will be addressing climate change, for the right reasons.

This following is a list scientists and former scientists who have stated disagreement with one or more of the principal conclusions of human culpability for global warming.

Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg
Robert M. Carter, geologist, researcher at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Australia
Vincent R. Gray, coal chemist, climate consultant, founder of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.
David Bellamy, environmental campaigner, broadcaster and former botanist
Hendrik Tennekes, retired Director of Research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute
Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison
George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus and head of The Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware
Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin
Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University in Canada
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of AdelaideTom Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo
Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of JerusalemFred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and Director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks
Claude Allègre, geochemist, Institute of Geophysics (Paris)
Robert C. Balling, Jr., a professor of geography at Arizona State University
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville
Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory
William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University
Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma
Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professors of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville
Craig D. Idso, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University; founder of The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Sherwood Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State UniversityPatrick Michaels, former state climatologist, University of Virginia

The SuperGold Card Fiasco

Well after much debate we all agree that the SuperGold Card is a dead duck, it has been launched poorly with not many actual benefits that matter to over 65s and Winston Peters has come across, I feel, like he thinks we’re all idiots telling us that this card is card must make a "real difference" then demonstrating it makes very little, if any, difference to the over 65s that need it most.

Examples
State Insurance
The “No excess to apply for customers 55+ on their contents comprehensive policy for claims involving spectacles, dentures, hearing aids or contact lenses” benefit is available to all over 65s on this particular policy, SuperGold Card or not, it was available before the SuperGold Card came out which means…this is not a SuperGold Card benefit.

Auckland Regional Council Busses and Trains
The “40% off normal adult fare for most bus, train and ferry services after 9am Mon-Fri all weekend” is not useable with the SuperGold Card, you need to go to MAXX and get another card to prove you’re over 65, this also was in effect before the SuperGold Card which means again, this is not a SuperGold Card benefit.

There are some genuine benefits from the SuperGold Card, such as the guys at Kiwi Campers. These guys are obviously doing their part with a generous blanket 20% discount to SuperGold Card holders. However through Kiwi Campers, a mid range, mid season camper will cost retail $216 per day. Kiwi Campers has a minimum 5 day hire, which equals $1080, less the 20% discount would be $864. I ask you, those that need the SuperGold Card the most…will this help?

All this along with a patronizing advert telling seniors that “you’re worth it” and the final insult, from Winston Peters’ own speech on 29th August 2007 where he told us of the SuperGold Card, “it had to be more than a token gesture - it had to have tangible benefits that could make a real difference. And it had to take account of varied circumstances and be relevant for all lifestyles.”

This has been, and I believe will continue to be, a farce. It is a great idea; it has been executed poorly and without the promised benefits. How much did this card cost the taxpayers? Was that money worth it? Should that money just been given to the over 65s?

Winston has fulfilled his election promise, but it’s a bit like me, telling my sweetheart that I would buy her a ring for her birthday, then I give here one from the $2 shop…I have fulfilled my promise, but we all know it’s a piece of crap…

Earth to TVNZ

Last night I saw the item on the news about the bridge collapsing in China during rush hour traffic, it was shown at 6.22pm. I was thinking “Gosh, doesn’t this sound a bit familiar?”

On 1st August a bridge collapsed into the Mississippi in Minneapolis at 6.10pm local time (11.10am 2nd August NZ Time), it was first reported that 7 people are believed to be dead. This news led the TVNZ news bulletin along with the Brauer verdict. The story was very in depth with pictures along with the story, then crossing to no less that two internationals correspondents TVNZ’s own Tim Wilson and ABC’s Andrew Colton, the live crosses took up a total of 3 minutes as well as everything else, the story may well have had 5 or 6 minutes coverage.

Jump forward almost two weeks, 13th August 4.40pm local time (8.40pm 13th August NZ Time) a bridge collapsed in Fenghuang, China, it was first reported that “more than 20 people had died”. This story came 22 minutes into the new bulletin and took up a total of 19 seconds….literally 19 seconds.

Let’s figure this out, both bridges collapsed in rush hour traffic, both had fatalities (American for deaths). So why does TVNZ put more focus on what appears to be the less important/serious event?

In the Minneapolis story TVNZ had less than seven hours between event and live 6pm news bulletin, in that time they organised two international correspondents and made the decision to lead with the story. In Fenghuang they had more than 21 hours before the next live 6pm news bulletin and we get a 19 second piece at 6.22pm.

So a bigger tragedy, with more time to organise a story gets less coverage than a smaller tragedy with less time to organise…?

Anyone care to offer suggestions as to why this is?

Let's be honest, this is not a case of Earth to TVNZ, this is a case of Earth to the NZ Media. I am sure all the others followed suit, so let’s not necessarily pick on TVNZ. Lets ask the people who decide what we see on our screens what makes news in this country...

Nia Glassie

Cru and Chris Kahui - weeks old
Lillybing - 23 months old
Delcelia Witika - 2
James Whakaruru - 4
Coral Burrows - 6
Teresa Cormack - 6…and the list could go on…

What were you doing at 4.12 yesterday afternoon?

I was sitting on the couch watching the new series of Family Guy. Thinking about prep for tonight, emailing friends and family and generally wasting time.

What were you doing at 4.12 yesterday afternoon?

At 4.12 yesterday afternoon Nia Glassie’s name was added to the above list, at 4.12 yesterday afternoon after being taken off life support for a second time, 3 year old Nia Glassie died.At 4.12 yesterday afternoon with her natural father by her side, Nia Glassie’s fight finished.

I honestly don’t have a clue what to say about this, other than I am in shock, maybe it’s because I have a three year old, or maybe it’s because I just can’t fathom what we, the so called superior, most advanced species on the planet, do to one another…

I honestly don’t know what we can say, other than the innocent wee three year old never did anything wrong but she was dealt an unplayable hand of scumbags parents, family and caregivers.

We need to not forget Nia, as so many others get forgotten...until the next case.

The enemy of my enemies is my friend???

Newsflash....it's official, the people in charge, the ones making the decisions for the American forces in Iraq have officially LOST THEIR MINDS!!!

Latest reports are that the U.S is now arming Sunnis in Iraq to battle their old Al Qaeda allies...who are now their enemies. The thought goes like this...

"The enemy of my enemies is my friend"

Check here for details

The Daily Show did a brilliant analysis on this by looking at who are their the U.S enemies, hence who could be their friends...went like this

Enemy of the US * Their Enemy/US Friend
Al Qaeda * Sunni Insurgents
Sunni Insurgents * Shia Death Squads
Shia Death Squads * Iraqi cleric Moqtada Al-Sadar
Iraqi cleric Moqtada Al-Sadar * Al Qaeda

Click here for the Daily Show clip

So obviously anyone who is an enemy, could also be a friend....just one thought comes to mind...In the past, didn't the US use this same technique for little groups like...The Taliban fighting the Russians, Saddam Hussain fighting Iran....oh, and Iran for figting Saddam Hussain...does anyone else think this may end in tears???

Pro Choice V Pro Life

I had a bit if a wake up call today reading the Newstalk ZB website and seeing this article...

"The number of abortions performed in New Zealand has increased slightly.

The latest Statistics New Zealand figures show 17,930 terminations were performed in the year ended December 2006. That is 400 more than in 2005, and follows a decreases of 3.7 percent between 2004 and 2005.Women aged between 20 and 24 had more abortions than other age groups. The median age of women having an abortion has remained stable over the past 20 years, at around 25-years-old."

It would seem that we are so flippant with numbers and statistics now that we can say that nearly 18,000 potential New Zealanders have been terminated and not think twice about it, well today I thought about it.

Check out the statistics here and here from the Statistics NZ website.

Long story short it says that since 1991 244,211 potential New Zealanders have been terminated.

What is the downstream effect of that, it's been over 30 years since abortion became legal, how may of those aborted babies would themselves be having babies now? What would our population be? How would our economy be with all those extra taxpayers, entrepreneurs, business people, inventors never experiencing life?

A quarter of a million people since 1991, if you say it quick enouch...it doesn't sound that big does it....it's only the approximate population of the Waikato.