Kiwis doomed

The content on this webpage contains paid/affiliate links. When you click on any of our affiliate link, we/I may get a small compensation at no cost to you. See our affiliate disclosure for more info

Last updated on May 18th, 2017 at 11:23 am

Terry Dunleavy considers New Zealand’s fate should it pursue carbon reduction:

New Zealand produces about 0.2 per cent of the world’s man-made production of CO2. Even if NZ totally eliminated CO2 emissions, the difference would be to reduce the annual rate of increase in the atmosphere by 0.2 per cent of 1.5ppm, equalling 0.003ppm which equals 3 parts per billion. This of course is a far lower amount than can even be detected.

Are we seriously going to shatter our economy, restrict ourselves to a fragile electricity system, cost every family in the land $1000 to $1500 per year in electricity expenses alone, seriously damage our agriculture industry, etc. by trying to reduce New Zealand’s minuscule CO2 contribution?

But it’s worse than that. The Government’s stated goal is to reduce our CO2 emissions by 20 per cent. So if we were to succeed in this, and thereby reduce New Zealand’s 3 parts per billion contribution to 20 per cent of this figure, the reduction in global CO2 arising from our action would amount to 0.6 parts per billion per year.

Thus will the planet be saved.

(Via Mystery)

Posted by Tim B. on 05/07/2008 at 01:24 AM
    1. Please go easy on the facts and reason.

      Posted by Harry Bergeron on 2008 05 07 at 01:37 AM • permalink


    1. Faith comes at a price.
      Gaia is a jealous and demanding god.

      Posted by daddy dave on 2008 05 07 at 01:45 AM • permalink


    1. Well I’ll be. Who would have thunk it? Actually I’m not surprised).

      But we don’t have any figures for costs in Australia to implement ‘our’ emissions trading scheme.  ‘Our’ federal government has been very quiet about it so it will be interesting to see the details when they are announced.  However I’d guess that ‘our’ emissions trading scheme will cost at least as much as the NZ one and if implemented will achieve about the same, i.e., 2/3 of 3/8 of SFA.

      Fun times ahead for all!

      Posted by Wand on 2008 05 07 at 01:52 AM • permalink


    1. Ah, but a wonderful example the Kiwis will have set to the rest of the world by miring themselves in poverty.  Everybody else will be racing to jump on that bandwagon.
      Seriously, though, I thought that NZ was reducing its carbon output by having every Kiwi come and live in Australia…

      Posted by Bohemond on 2008 05 07 at 01:53 AM • permalink


    1. It gets better – the NZ govt just secured the deal of the century by buying back their trains and rail ferries for around $230 million more than they are worth.

      With such stellar financial management, greenhouse emissions may well fall to 0 as the country goes bankrupt.

      Posted by brucey bonus on 2008 05 07 at 01:53 AM • permalink


    1. “The government’s stated goal”, what bullshit.
      If this global warming crap was not one of their election issues and it probably wasn’t, I mean that feman Clark has been in for a while, then get rid of the bastards before they wreck your country Terry.
      Shit mate, you mob beat the crap out of the poms in the 1880’s, go do it again, it will be easier if anythig.
      Here endeth the lesson.

      Posted by Turbine on 2008 05 07 at 01:53 AM • permalink


    1. Wait until the super volcano EnZed’s sitting on goes off. The emission bills going to be enormous.

      Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2008 05 07 at 02:03 AM • permalink


    1. I always thought Helen Clark had balls…

      Perhaps not.

      Nah. Who am I kidding? She has balls.

      Posted by Dan Lewis on 2008 05 07 at 02:04 AM • permalink


    1. If the Kiwis want to reduce their carbon footprint, they could always go nuclear; a 2-4 reactors ought to be plenty for the island immediate and future needs.  Or they could collectively stop breathing.

      Anyone want to guess which choice would be considered more politically acceptable?

      Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2008 05 07 at 02:10 AM • permalink


    1. Maybe they should have the Lancet to run their eye over those figures. That should bump the numbers up a bit.

      Here’s a thought: I wonder which produces more emissions – New Zealand or the city of Beijing?

      Posted by anonymous guest on 2008 05 07 at 02:47 AM • permalink


    1. No worries Fred’s on the job at the UN

      Posted by Pickles on 2008 05 07 at 02:55 AM • permalink


    1. OT: Wronwright, does this concern you at all?

      Posted by Ash_ on 2008 05 07 at 02:55 AM • permalink


    1. #3 Wand -“the details when they are announced”?????????

      More likely IF they are announced!!!

      Posted by Rod C on 2008 05 07 at 03:55 AM • permalink


    1. 0.2 per cent of 1.5ppm, equalling 0.003ppm which equals

      4/5 of 5/8 of fuck all.

      Posted by kae on 2008 05 07 at 03:58 AM • permalink


    1. #5
      Don’t laugh, Brucey.

      They have a leftie government, and now we have one, too.


      Wait until the super volcano EnZed’s sitting on goes off. The emission bills going to be enormous.

      End Poverty NowNew Zealand Soon.

      Posted by kae on 2008 05 07 at 04:09 AM • permalink


    1. #13 Rod

      More likely IF they are announced!!!

      I’d like to think that the whole thing will be abandoned before it gets started.  Unfortunately this whole ETS thing has its own timetable and agenda.  And like it or not an ETS will be foisted on the Australian economy.

      The details of the Scheme Scam will have to be announced simply because it would be impossible not to.  And at that time we can expect that Krudd’s and Wong’s spinmeisters will all be in fine form.  The alcopops puritanical announcement will seem like a drop in the bucket but an indication of the shape of things to come.  (to mangle and mix my metaphors).

      Posted by Wand on 2008 05 07 at 04:10 AM • permalink


    1. OT: 2020 summit rewards are being handed out early. Rudd specifically mentioned Tim Costello’s World Vision when talking of aid to Burma (or Myanmar to the junta and Costello). Sounds like Costello’s payment for his robust support of Rudd will be a big increase in federal money flowing through his business charity.

      Rudd also mentioned the UN, which is always criminally slow at disaster relief. Presume that is his part of his longer-term plan to succeed Ban Ki-Moon as secretary general.

      Posted by Contrail on 2008 05 07 at 04:13 AM • permalink


    1. (to mangle and mix my metaphors).

      Don’t you mean mingle and max your metaphors?

      Posted by kae on 2008 05 07 at 04:48 AM • permalink


    1. Ash –

      Wronwright, does this concern you at all?

      (wrings hands)

      No, um, why should it?  Hey, how did they get that photo?  splice!

      Posted by wronwright on 2008 05 07 at 05:18 AM • permalink



      Posted by Penguin on 2008 05 07 at 05:22 AM • permalink


    1. I hope the bastards freeze; I hope they have to do Hakas like this just to keep warm;

      It’s the only way we’ll beat the mongrels at union.

      Posted by cohenite on 2008 05 07 at 05:49 AM • permalink


    1. # 19 Photo? Oh yes, that photo, um… I must have left it on the photocopier at VRWC HQ.

      But before you say anything, let me explain. That rather flattering snapshot is to go on the invitations for the Evil, Resurrection and Redemption party planned for the June long weekend. We’re timing it to coincide with the official start of the whale slaughter watching season in NSW. Now, I know why you’re angry, but you see I haven’t photoshopped the horns, fangs and evil bulging eyes in yet. Nobody will recognize you, I promise.

      Posted by splice on 2008 05 07 at 07:16 AM • permalink


    1. If only there were a way to grow wool without an animal under it!  Say cotton.

      Hills of waving cotton is the future.

      Posted by rhhardin on 2008 05 07 at 07:23 AM • permalink


    1. OK, so Time errors are WRONWRIIIIIIIGHT’s, and paperwork glitches are SPLIIIIIIIIIIICE’s.

      Cool, glad that’s sorted.

      I won’t mention where I found the virgin sacrifice er, toga party pix posted in a previous thread.

      Posted by kae on 2008 05 07 at 07:30 AM • permalink


    1. #5 Anyone else old enough to (sort of) remember Kerry Packer verbally dismembering a conga line of suckholes group of Labor’s leading lights during a televised ‘commission of enquiry’ hearing?  That was great television.

      A nice little illustration of where the real brains of a civilization are, and aren’t.

      Posted by Brett_McS on 2008 05 07 at 07:33 AM • permalink


    1. You mean this Print Inquiry?

      Posted by kae on 2008 05 07 at 07:36 AM • permalink


    1. Or the tax inquiry?

      Posted by kae on 2008 05 07 at 07:40 AM • permalink


    1. #25
      (The sheets were at the laundromat, obviously.)

      Posted by kae on 2008 05 07 at 07:51 AM • permalink


    1. Then just print more money.

      Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 05 07 at 08:05 AM • permalink


    1. Oh, the Print Inquiry.  Well done, kae.  Aren’t these internets wonderful?

      Posted by Brett_McS on 2008 05 07 at 08:06 AM • permalink


    1. #22 Splice

      We’re timing it to coincide with the official start of the whale slaughter watching season in NSW.

      Umm. So it actually is a whale WATCHING season?


      Senior Minionettes Kae and Pogria. We need about 500 minionettes down on the flensing deck right bloody now to give the 800 on-watch minions a hand.

      Gotta get these humpbacks filleted and turned into steaks and into the freezer PDQ.

      Only time we watch whales is when they are sizzling on the BBQ.

      Minionmeister to the VRWC

      Posted by MarkL on 2008 05 07 at 08:26 AM • permalink


    1. #31
      Whale, tofu – it’s all the same to me. I’ll pass.
      Give me a nice steak or a rack of lamb.


      Oh, yeah, OK, MarkL, Sir, I’ll get some people down there as soon as poss… yesterday.

      Posted by kae on 2008 05 07 at 08:33 AM • permalink


    1. There’s an inconsistency in the quote – it says that New Zealand is committed to reducing CO2 by 20%, but then gives the figures for reducing it to 20% (i.e. an 80% reduction).  Reducing it by 20% would give a figure of 2.4 ppb.

      Just in the interests of accuracy and all.

      Posted by Graham on 2008 05 07 at 09:08 AM • permalink


    1. Sheep Out Of New Zealand!

      No Wool for Carbon!

      Posted by RebeccaH on 2008 05 07 at 09:35 AM • permalink


    1. What a coincidence: 0.6 sheep per billion remain unmolested in New Zealand.

      Posted by Hanyu on 2008 05 07 at 10:29 AM • permalink


    1. Ain’t reality a bitch?

      Posted by mojo on 2008 05 07 at 10:43 AM • permalink


    1. The Kiwis can cut their carbon output by disbanding the All Blacks – just think what a large carbon footprint all that international traveling creates.

      Posted by kpom on 2008 05 07 at 12:20 PM • permalink


    1. Hmmmmm.

      So what precisely is the problem here?

      They did sign the treaty right?

      Posted by memomachine on 2008 05 07 at 02:59 PM • permalink


    1. Hmmmm.

      I think the Kiwis are going to be pretty pissed off when it turns out the planet really is cooling and not warming.

      But where will they go for a refund?

      Posted by memomachine on 2008 05 07 at 03:05 PM • permalink


    1. New Zealand:Australia::Canada:USA

      I feel your pain.

      Posted by rightwingprof on 2008 05 07 at 03:27 PM • permalink


    1. I’m typing this on the eighth floor of the Duxton, Wellington, looking out over the beautiful harbour, and thinking NZ is actually a pretty level headed place.
      Never mind that Harvey Keitel is currently congratulating them on saying no to GM food and nuclear power in a beer commercial, they have this morning show presenter named Paul Henry who is is an economically literate libertarian. He completely went the hack on the Greens MP this week, who was complaining about how his taxes would be subsidising the petrol of the landcruiser that overtook his bus, and Henry leapt pointing out that the bloke in the LC subsidises the buses much more. Then this morning he said to two MP’s “the problem with democracy is too many stupid people”. They laughed and said “but surely they are spread evenly” and he says “No no, more idiots vote for Labour than the Nationals”. Love him.

      Posted by ooh honey honey on 2008 05 07 at 04:22 PM • permalink


    1. “But we don’t have any figures for costs in Australia to implement ‘our’ emissions trading scheme.”

      Start here –
      Emissions trading — a weapon of mass taxation

      Staggering estimates of the costs of forcing industry to purchase permits to emit CO2 are just starting to emerge: Germany (100 billion euros), Australia (up to $22 billion), New Zealand ($4.5 billion). The amazing fact is that even though consumers in many countries will bear oppressive costs, there may be no reduction whatsoever in CO2 emissions, and no beneficial effects on the world climate.

      (The Chairman of the Australian Taxation Institute, Mr Michael Dirkis, recently estimated that the direct tax cost of an emissions trading scheme could be $22 billion or 40 per cent of company tax receipts.)

      Posted by John Anderson on 2008 05 08 at 01:00 AM • permalink


    1. #42 Thanks John for the link to the article at Brookes news and the related articles.  I have no doubt about the level of costs that Viv Forbes writes about and the other multiplier osts.  The point that I was making is that the government continues to keep its scheme under wraps so no one knows quite what it will be. There have only been a few comments – one from Penny Wong that the scheme will be one of the greatest changes to the Australian economy ever and also some comments from Garnaut though the government distanced itself from him. It could be that the government will just implement the thing to try to avoid criticism but whatever they do it will be hugely destructive and costly.

      Posted by Wand on 2008 05 08 at 01:31 AM • permalink


  1. Wand at #3 and #43 and John Anderson at #42 that’s why all this hysteria about taxing alcopops and cutting the baby bonus.  KRudd will need the $20 billion surplus and all the new taxes and budget cuts to finance his newly signed Kyoto obligations, every little bit counts.

    Yes, I know it’s a dead thread, I just couldn’t keep this to myself.  The unravelling is happening much faster than I thought it would.

    Posted by Crossie on 2008 05 08 at 09:40 AM • permalink