Climate change alarmists turn us off
We’ve been told too often the world is about to end to care
What a spectacular disappointment it must have been for the environmentalists and greenies to learn that this country has failed and/or is refusing to get on the “save the planet” bandwagon.
Total emissions for the decade 2007 to 2017 barely moved, while household emissions — you and me at home — went up.
This is the first data post from the Zero Carbon Bill, which will turn out ultimately to be yet another example of theory versus reality.
There are a number of reasons we are where we are. Not least of which
is the fact those who peddle this stuff have failed to convince the vast majority of us that major action is required.
Climate change has turned into one of the great topics of the age. There is no doubt the message has saturation.
Most people understand it to some degree. Lots of people second guess it. Many are zealots about it.
As a result, there is as much hot air about it as there is actual change.
But ultimately these numbers prove we are more interested in talking about it than doing anything about it, and I suspect that is the case at least in part because the zealots came out of the blocks too hard and too fast and too dramatically — and have never really let up.
In other words, the alarmism around this subject has simply turned too many people off.
The world is ending, we must act now, we have only 20 years left . . . none of it turned out to be true.
Wasn’t true then, isn’t true now.
The cause has not been helped by the role of places like China, the United States and India, who vary in their degree of interest and action from nonplussed to barely registering.
I note with interest, though, that in May the United States produced more electricity from clean energy sources than coal for the first time. Britain is producing more electricity from clean energy sources like offshore wind farms than fossil fuels.
Both countries have nuclear capacity, so come back to me when you are ready to have that discussion locally.
But those positive figures don’t hide the fact those countries are massive polluters and the simple statistical fact is we are not.
We could turn out the lights tomorrow and close every factory, house and shop in the land, and the Earth wouldn’t notice a thing.
Not that that is a reason to do nothing. But if you look at the picture globally and you see the lack of action, it’s not hard to see why large numbers of us wonder why you would bother.
Not helping also are the Kyoto and Paris agreements: Steeped in ideology, less so in actual outcomes.
As each of those banner-headline, groundbreaking documents prove to be basically bits of paper that fell short, the momentum slows ever more.
But the biggest issue of all, and we simply can’t escape it, is economic.
As altruistic as you might want to be, most of us don’t want to participate in an exercise we can see hasn’t worked elsewhere, but will also in this pursuit hurt us in our back pocket.
Most of the changes involve inconvenience whether in terms of lifestyle or jobs or income.
Being better with the planet isn’t a good economic policy. Oh, they say it is, but they can’t prove it or show it, not in the numbers we need.
Taranaki is all the proof you need — offshore licences and exploration worth $28 billion going, 3000 jobs going. The replacement? A $26 million clean energy centre. Not exactly quid pro quo.
And so much of the economic side of the equation is the farming.
We are a farming nation.
The bulk of the stats on emissions are from farming.
We are not wrecking farming, but by trying to over-compensate in other areas of the economy to make an impact to counter-balance the rural sector, we encroach on economic wellbeing and we are simply not prepared to make the sacrifice.
Hence, over a decade . . . nothing. And we have no reason to believe that the next decade will be any different.