Log In

Reset Password

Climate report an outline for bankruptcy

Opinion Piece

People talk about their concern for future generations but as one of the future generation most likely to be affected by a “warming” planet, the current political response concerns me more.

The recently-released report from the government-sponsored Climate Change Commission would be laughable if the implications weren't so severe and serious. Applauded by Labour and the Greens as achievable, feasible and a great step forward, it outlines how to bankrupt New Zealand environmentally, socially and economically within a decade or two at most.

The fact our Government supports it shows utter contempt for hard-working New Zealanders, their lack of reality with the working-class base who voted them in, and their utter ignorance and lack of understanding of basic science, social structure and economics.

New Zealand contributes just 0.2 percent of all global emissions. This goal to be “carbon neutral” or “zero emissions” is all for 0.2 percent! That is miniscule and would not be noticed anywhere. Ever.

The Government is woefully ignorant about giving credit to emissions already stored on farms in grass, wool and native plantings and ignores animals do not produce more carbon than they uptake; it is a natural cycle. They ignore harvested pine trees are burned in China after one use as concrete boxing, thus releasing all their “stored” carbon dioxide.

This report reeks of feel-good, virtue signalling yet still leaves other countries to do the dirty work. Has anyone looked at the conditions of cobalt or lithium mines to get the minerals to make the electric vehicle batteries? What about the child slave labour to mine it? New Zealand cannot produce or store enough electricity through wind, hydro or solar for everything — cars, trucks, trains, houses, businesses etc — to be 100 percent electric. We lack the capacity by miles, and heavy-duty electric trucks have yet to be invented.

The encouragement of pine forestry would see most of New Zealand's farms covered in trees, either native or pine. Natives have a poor survival success rate and the seldom-reported side effect of pines is their destruction of the soil as needles are acidic, so soil acidity increases over time.

While we may have relatively few farmers, a large percentage of the national workforce is tied up in farming directly or indirectly. The mass unemployment that would result from virtually no farming leaves tens of thousands unemployed as fencers and shearers are out of work, as are hay contractors, rural trucking firms, rural farm suppliers, freezing workers rural doctors/nurses/teachers, vets, fertiliser companies, farm consultants, various government departments.

Yet the Government's plans would see them all out of work and in the cities. Cities which already face one of the largest housing shortages ever seen, and already have high unemployment.

The commission assured New Zealanders that many people who would lose their jobs would be highly trained to take new jobs. As what? Fencers building a fence around Parliament to block out the starving, angry masses? Shearers shearing the people who are so blind they just follow like sheep? Diesel mechanics doing what? Farmers growing what? What would our GDP consist of?

You can't have that level of unemployment and sustain it through the dole as the number of unemployed would be greater than the number employed. Social collapse would be inevitable as people leave homes of generations seeking whatever they can find in cities.

Wake up to what the real costs are because the poorest and middle working class are always hardest hit. The future generation depends on it.

■ See today's editorial

Laura Henderson

  1. Peter Jones says:

    Well said Laura Henderson. I would love to know your secret. How come you get to say what I say and I don’t? I have almost given up trying to write in this communist rag but you have given me hope.

  2. Bryan Leyland, Auckland says:

    Laura, congratulations on an article that fits the evidence.

  3. Lara says:

    You are evidently passionate about this subject. I tried to look you up to determine your field of expertise in order to make a decision about whether you are well informed.
    You write “New Zealand cannot produce or store enough electricity through wind, hydro or solar for everything — cars, trucks, trains, houses, businesses etc — to be 100 percent electric. We lack the capacity by miles, and heavy-duty electric trucks have yet to be invented.”
    If that is the case then I guess we will need to reduce our use of electrical appliances then.
    The looming catastrophe is not that NZ is doing too much to meet our obligations under the Paris Accord rather that we are going to drag the chain and engage in ongoing climate change denialism.
    The UN has clearly stated the the earth is now in RED ALERT and we have this year, 2021, to take drastic measures or we will perish.
    You made interesting points but you are missing the main point. Extinction. We can live with less, we have done it in the past, but we can’t live if we can’t protect ourselves from the sun’s harmful rays, acidic oceans and loss of essential ecosystems. There isn’t another planet for humanity to decamp to.
    We can’t wrestle Mother Nature into submission any longer. We will be shaken off like a dog shakes off water.

    1. Bob Hughes says:

      Well done Lara pointing out this weekend’s UN “Red Alert” and what might indeed be inevitable – unless the world takes notice and heeds the alert. We have this year, 2021, to take drastic measures or . . . we could perish.
      These apt phrases from Laura’s column: “Social collapse” and “The future generation depends on it”.

    2. Deborah Alexander, Auckland says:

      To anyone who would question Laura’s statements please take the time to look at the readily-available, credible data/information which she bases these statements on, rather than just question her expertise. Based on your own research, you may just be impressed with her knowledge and independently come to a similar stance.

  4. Clive Bibby says:

    Hey Lara
    You have just demonstrated why it is that a lot of your opinions lack credibility – not Laura’s or those of other contributors to this and similar debates that apparently require your personal stamp of approval before being classed as authoritative.
    Presumably, if the comments under examination don’t pass your “pub test” – or a peer review that satisfies the editor’s short list – then they are of little value.
    It is either a sign of extreme arrogance or a lack of confidence in your own dodgy opinions – probably both.
    It is obvious that Laura Henderson reads widely and much of her information is gleaned from experts in their field. It is just unfortunate for you that the giants of science she quotes don’t contribute to the same discredited journals that you read.
    You should ask Laura for some of her references – I have never met her but can tell from her clear, common-sense writing that she would be happy to share the lot with you.

  5. Paul Catchpole, Taranaki says:

    Excellent stuff Laura. Keep up the good work. It may be that the tide is actually turning . . . I hope so.

  6. Vanessa Mounsey, Taranaki says:

    Thanks for sharing this article