The climate needs more ‘absolutism’ not less
HE may be entertaining, but Shane Jones is a loose cannon, incapable, it seems, of clear thinking.
Perhaps, in election year, he’s attempting to differentiate NZ First from Labour and the Greens, but a little less Trumpian rhetoric would better suit a government minister from a party hoping to stay in Government.
Education Minister Chris Hipkins, speaking of the Government decision to teach about climate change in schools, referred to learning about the role science plays in understanding climate change’s local and global effects on the planet, and how to contribute to reducing and adapting to its impact on everyday life.
Climate Change Minister James Shaw, reasonably, commented that one of the ways children could help reduce carbon emissions was by eating less meat.
Those remarks triggered a tirade from Mr Jones, who inveighed against ‘‘absolutism . . . infecting’’ the climate change debate in New Zealand, comparing it to medieval torture on the rack for heresy.
After affirming NZ First’s interest in adapting to changing weather and climate (apparently no mention of preventing cataclysmic further climate change by reducing emissions) he said ‘‘I won’t be desisting from eating copious quantities of kaimoana or meat. That’s how I grew up.’’
If lots of kaimoana and meat produce an adult so blind to the threat carbon emissions present to carnivores and vegans alike (and, through ocean warming and acidification, to the kaimoana he loves), and only prepared to try to adapt to climate change, not consider changes to prevent it worsening, one might wonder if everyone should be brought up vegetarian, lest they become as dangerously blind as Mr Jones.
Civis suspects that kaimoana, gathered by traditional means, may cause lower levels of carbon emissions than farmed meat. But there’s no doubt that commercially farmed meat involves higher carbon emissions than the equivalent plantbased diet. Suggesting eating less meat than in the past (it might be healthier too) is hardly ‘‘absolutism’’. To qualify for that label one would have to ban all meat products. Nor is teaching children to contribute to reducing emissions.
Adapting to climate change effects, which Mr Jones approves, is necessary, but preventing an apocalyptic exacerbation of global warming, by sharply reducing emissions, is even more essential.
Governments have made promises, but delivered little.
Some, like New Zealand’s, have finally enacted legislation which should reduce emissions.
Some, such as the present Governments of the US and Australia, persist in promoting and subsidising increased extraction of oil and coal. As Greta Thunberg told the recent Davos meeting: ‘‘As long as the science is being ignored, and as long as the facts are not being taken into account, leaders can continue to ignore the situation’’. Like Mr Jones.
The carbon threat to human civilisation, and even existence, is greater than that posed by the 20th century World Wars.
Immediate and dramatic action is needed now, not in a few years’ time, if the short remaining opportunity for effective action is to be exploited.
But where is the mobilisation of whole nations by their Governments, as in the World Wars, to prevent this disaster?
One could almost be forgiven for thinking the world needs more ‘‘absolutism’’ in fighting climate change, not less.
St Paul’s Cathedral, unusually, was full, the only vacant seat the Bishop’s (he was travelling to a daughter’s marriage), and the pews were packed tight.
Those present came to remember and honour Gerald Madden — outstanding teacher; musician; husband; father; affirmer of life even as he accepted that his own would be claimed early by cancer.
The cathedral choir, in which he’d sung as boy (Head Boy in 1969), man, and then occasional ringin (even only a month ago) appeared to include other ringins from the past, returning in solidarity.
His funeral was a reminder that the constructive enthusiasm and charisma of an individual can be an immeasurable force for good.
Rest in peace, Gerald.