155
submitted 4 months ago by silence7@slrpnk.net to c/climate@slrpnk.net

Article is free with registration (use a throwaway email account)

It is reversing a ban on oil and gas drilling, and is proposing a “fast-track” for big projects, including mines, that bypasses environmental checks. It has cut climate programs and jobs, scrapped electric vehicle subsidies, abandoned plans for one of the world’s largest marine sanctuaries and set aside a world-leading cow “burp” tax as it questions the science on methane, a potent greenhouse gas.

top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Isa@feddit.org 65 points 4 months ago

Is no place on earth safe of them? 🤢

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 26 points 4 months ago

The greed will continue until ecological collapse.

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 11 points 4 months ago

Based on what I've seen, I expect it will continue until well past collapse too.

[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Where it will blame the left for all the damage the right did.

[-] APassenger@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

"It was God's judgment."

[-] Isa@feddit.org 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yes, probably it will.

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago

That's not the only way it might go.

[-] kowcop@aussie.zone 23 points 4 months ago

This is just normal left / right politics.. every country has it. One side builds and people get bored and new media love to stir shit, then other side comes in and sells / destroys / winds back.. people get up on arms and vote the other ones back in and the cycle continues

[-] tankplanker@lemmy.world 28 points 4 months ago

There usually has to be a lever for the far right to use, usually rampant economic inequality. Ardern never really addressed the fucked up housing market in NZ, which was the perfect tax free investment vehicle for those with money. Deny people the right to get their own place and move on with adulthood and you have a pretty big lever that the far right can use to fenagle their corporate sponsored anti environment bullshit with a dash of fascism into power.

[-] floofloof@lemmy.ca 18 points 4 months ago

This seems to be the story in many countries right now, unfortunately, and fascism has been on the rise globally for years.

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 4 points 4 months ago

Almost as if certain governments and malefactors of great wealth were coordinating in promoting it.

[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 months ago

"Both sides," says one side.

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Hard Right nationalists: who the hell do you think you are, trying to slow down the apocalypse?

[-] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

The unfortunate thing is the country is running out of money, and unlike much of the world we haven't had massive natural resources we exploited in the industrial revolution to build our country wealth.

Do we like it- no. But were also a country of 5 million that sells low value goods and are a tiny % of global co2. Our country is less than 200 years old, at the end of global logistics chains, with an area that (from the top of my head) would reach from Denmark to Spain.

[-] kaffiene@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

We are not running out of money and our debt level is near the lowest in the OECD.

[-] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world -5 points 4 months ago

The significant austerity measures around the country strongly disagree with you.

Auckland just canceled a significant number of its infrastructure projects, and the regional fuel tax along with significant cuts in maintenance - 30% reduction last I heard

Hamilton is nearly being mothballed to save money.

No idea about other major centers.

[-] Goodie@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago

So noe ypu ask yourself: why?

Where is that money going?

Why are we having tax cuts of various types... only to borrow more money?

[-] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world -3 points 4 months ago

Ooo, I got quite good at this game. Let's see...

A low GDP per capita economy, significant logistics chains and costs, low nation ownership of productive assets and banks, lack of economies of scale from infrastructure spread over a wide area with low population, surprisingly lack of accountability for project over runs....

And yes, class divide which funnels money upwards rather than reaching investment in the country.

Howd I do?

[-] Goodie@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

A low GDP per capita economy

Still higher than some countries who manage much more. We beat Korea, Japan, Spain, hell, we edge out France.

significant logistics chains and costs

Good thing we are getting some new Toyota Carolla Ferrys to help make those logistic chains better!

low nation ownership of productive assets and banks

The same party that is now claiming we need austerity, also sold of several of those productive assets.

lack of economies of scale from infrastructure spread over a wide area with low population

Fair. I think most of our main infra is pretty consolidated, but a large portion of our economy is based on farming, which by it's very nature, is spread out.

surprisingly lack of accountability for project over runs…

On this we agree. I also think that cancelling good projects, simply because it's the "other sides" project, should also have accountability.

[-] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

A low GDP per capita economy

Still higher than some countries who manage much more. We beat Korea, Japan, Spain, hell, we edge out France.

My numbers are a bit outdated (pre covid), I thought NZ was around 80k, France sat closer to 1.2 million.

Interesting point - you also picked countries with significantly higher population in close proximity to major trade routes and markets.

significant logistics chains and costs

Good thing we are getting some new Toyota Carolla Ferrys to help make those logistic chains better!

Its a shame they love to drag the chain, so to speak...

low nation ownership of productive assets and banks

The same party that is now claiming we need austerity, also sold of several of those productive assets.

Oh, make no mistake im not supporting national in any of this. Just stating the issue and where the country is.

lack of economies of scale from infrastructure spread over a wide area with low population

Fair. I think most of our main infra is pretty consolidated, but a large portion of our economy is based on farming, which by it's very nature, is spread out.

Agreed- unfortunately low value bulky goods that fetch global price means it sucks for us consumers.

surprisingly lack of accountability for project over runs…

On this we agree. I also think that cancelling good projects, simply because it's the "other sides" project, should also have accountability.

Couldn't agree more. 4 year election cycle, cut the crap and let's get this country better.

[-] Goodie@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

You thought France had a 1.2 million USD per capita GDP? At that rate their GDP would be... 82 trillion. Dwarfing Chinas mere 18 trillion.

Interesting point - you also picked countries with significantly higher population in close proximity to major trade routes and markets.

Honestly, I went to a country per capita list, and picked out some names that stuck out. I'm not sure if you could ever find a country that's really comparable, in many ways we are at the end of everything.

Agreed- unfortunately low value bulky goods that fetch global price means it sucks for us consumers.

One of my big pushes in the last year has been to pay attention to food miles when purchasing... and sweet fucking jesus. The cheap stuff we import, and then sell our expensive goods overseas for minor margins.

Couldn’t agree more. 4 year election cycle, cut the crap and let’s get this country better.

I think this is a trap. A lot of our problems come from how easy it is to change things, IMHO. I'm not going to go find a source now (eating my lunch), but our democracy is unique is how easy it is to change laws. A lot of other countries have more checks and balances than we go, eg a upper house. Though in comparison we have the check and balance of MMP and multiple parties having to form a coalition.

[-] Xcf456@lemmy.nz 4 points 4 months ago

Terribly, with a layer of sneering smugness to boot. The austerity justifciations are national party spin, swallowed whole. The govt is throwing billions to landlords and mega roads while cutting funding for public housing, critical infrastructure and even fucking food banks at a time of record demand for them.

They're also dumping costs onto households by cranking up user charges and abandoning councils to pay for decades of infrastructure underinvestment.

So no, they've chosen to loot and plunder.

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Yeah, you can't use austerity as evidence of economic problems when austerity is NP policy. Self-fulfilling prophesy.

And the only real reason for austerity is to make the rich richer and drive inequality even higher.

[-] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Except the austerity measures started when Labour was in. Admittedly not to that level, but they were aware of the issues that national took and run with.

Fully agree the landlord one is bullshit, but I find it interesting you don't consider roads critical infrastructure, especially considering we are still diffused throughout the country and don't have the density for lots of mass transit.

Finally, everything you have said is a symptom, not the underlying cause - you've told me Nat is cutting costs on key areas (yes), but you asked why it happened in the first place. Its the country wide symptoms I mentioned, and these can't be fixed in 3 years no matter who is in.

[-] Xcf456@lemmy.nz 2 points 4 months ago

I didn't say I don't consider roads as critical infrastucture, I specifically said "mega roads", i.e new multi lane motorways that are a waste of money because they will encourage more driving, more sprawl and make traffic even worse in the long run (and I imagine local roads will deteriorate as they did the last time this happened).

Three waters, the ferries, state housing, public transport are all better options right now that are woefully underfunded and in fact actively sabotaged by this govt.

The "we don't have the density" argument is often pulled out against funding public transport and it's unfounded. We're one of the most urbanised countries in the world. We could absolutely build more PT if we chose to, we've had far more extensive networks in the past than what we currently do.

Overall, saying what's happening is a symptom is just an attempt to claim what's happening right now is inevitable imo. Different choices can be made that would be far less damaging, they'd be positive even and actually address the underlying problems you highlight instead of this "better things aren't possible" fatalism.

[-] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

I didn't say I don't consider roads as critical infrastucture, I specifically said "mega roads", i.e new multi lane motorways that are a waste of money because they will encourage more driving, more sprawl and make traffic even worse in the long run (and I imagine local roads will deteriorate as they did the last time this happened).

Unfortunately the time to deal with the alternative here was 30 years ago. We aren't a 15 min city (none if them are) and changing this will take decades.

Three waters, the ferries, state housing, public transport are all better options right now that are woefully underfunded and in fact actively sabotaged by this govt.

Agreed, moving on.

The "we don't have the density" argument is often pulled out against funding public transport and it's unfounded. We're one of the most urbanised countries in the world. We could absolutely build more PT if we chose to, we've had far more extensive networks in the past than what we currently do.

Sydney has 6 million people compared to Auckland 1.2., Melbourne 5 with similar land area. If you look at % then yes, look at people per sqkm we are no where close.

Overall, saying what's happening is a symptom is just an attempt to claim what's happening right now is inevitable imo. Different choices can be made that would be far less damaging, they'd be positive even and actually address the underlying problems you highlight instead of this "better things aren't possible" fatalism.

Yes, better choices can be made, they will improve the country in the long run, but people struggling now get to vote. Balanced books get votes on confidence, ease of lifestyle and business as usual get votes, getting kicked out if my car and more regulations lose elections.

[-] Xcf456@lemmy.nz 2 points 4 months ago

Yeah like I said, "better things aren't possible" fatalism.

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 1 points 4 months ago

Sydney has 6 million people compared to Auckland 1.2., Melbourne 5 with similar land area. If you look at % then yes, look at people per sqkm we are no where close.

So you don't need as many buses to achieve the same coverage. Public transport infrastructure costs are not fixed for a certain land area, they are also proportional to potential ridership.

[-] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Backwards- if you want to cover areas your network needs to be the size to cover it. Its much more comparatively expensive when you have 3 people riding each route rather than 18.

You're correct on main lines, however you can also run larger busses.

[-] futatorius@lemm.ee 4 points 4 months ago

Our country is less than 200 years old

Presence of Europeans in your country is less than 200 years old.

[-] HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

I went of treaty of Waitangi, like how America was "founded" at the declaration of independence.

Flipside, I cant exactly say us Maori were developing a strong road network, industrial base and civil structures now can I?

this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2024
155 points (97.5% liked)

Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.

5229 readers
500 users here now

Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.

As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades: Graph of temperature as observed with significant warming, and simulated without added greenhouse gases and other anthropogentic changes, which shows no significant warming

How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world: IPCC AR6 Figure 2 - Thee bar charts: first chart: how much each gas has warmed the world.  About 1C of total warming.  Second chart:  about 1.5C of total warming from well-mixed greenhouse gases, offset by 0.4C of cooling from aerosols and negligible influence from changes to solar output, volcanoes, and internal variability.  Third chart: about 1.25C of warming from CO2, 0.5C from methane, and a bunch more in small quantities from other gases.  About 0.5C of cooling with large error bars from SO2.

Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:

Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS