It’s time someone stood up for CO2. This humble little gas needs a champion.
There’s plenty of people willing to stick up for dead dogs in umus or dead galahs in aviaries (and so they damn well should!). And there’s heaps of folk happy to defend any beneficiary lucky enough to gross a grand a week (where can the rest of us apply?) but no one, it seems, is willing to stand as CO2’s advocate.
If it was a gay gas hoping to adopt, there would be benchfuls of judges saying, “Why not?” If it was an ethnic gas, seeking a seat at the Super City table, there’d be coalitions of politicians saying, “Good on you, CO2!”
That’s a taste of Jim Hopkins’ column in the Herald. If you want to find out more about cinemactivists emoting about emitting and Greena, The Worrier Princess then read more here. Your laughter lines will thank you for it.
On a similar theme, Federated Farmers president Don Nicolson asks, could greenicide enter the English lexicon as a corruption of that all-defining slogan, clean and green?
Most farmers are clean because of high standards of farm management. Most farmers are green because farms are our offices as well as our homes. The vast majority of New Zealand’s farmers take environmental management very seriously.
Yet clean and green has been corrupted into greenicide, being the adoption of green policies at any cost.
He explains how much the campaign to reduce carbon emissions by 40% would cost, says reductions can’t and won’t work and introduces the convenient truth – that humans evolve.
Technology will enable humans to prosper and grow and that’s a positive and realistic vision of the future farmers support.
Controlling emissions demands an investment in science research and technology. This reconciles a basic human yearning “for more” without killing our planet.
. . . That’s why the Kyoto Protocol and Copenhagen negotiations seem more like a big jobs scheme. Too much spending is on policy, appearance and spin, not nearly enough is spent on solutions.
. . . If New Zealand put 0.05 per cent of gross domestic product into research instead of the emissions trading scheme, it would pump $87.5 million into climate variation research. In the United States, that figure would be some $11 billion and globally, over $34 billion would be raised.
The amount raised also illustrates New Zealand’s very small part in a much bigger global picture. New Zealand doesn’t produce 99.8 per cent of global emissions.
New Zealand can lead internationally on research without killing the economy.
The heroes aren’t the doom merchants who tell us how to live, but the scientists and farmers who enable us to live and prosper. Greenicide is not the solution.
That is the most sensible view on the issue of climate change I have come across.
Money for research will do far more for the environment, without the social and economic damage, than an ETS.
Whatever target we aim for, the ETS is not unlike the medieval system of religious indulgences, which required people to pay before they sinned, and will do as little good.