"Carbon Neutral?"
Last night on three news, Richard Branson (Libertarian or so the Advocates for Self Government believe) said this about New Zealand:
"I believe it would be great if New Zealand were to become the first 'carbon neutral' nation in the world..."
Well, Richard, let me tell you what government-forced "carbon neutrality" really means:
1) The complete overhaul of industry and commerce;
2) The dismantling of important infrastructure like roads, railways, powerlines, oil pipes, airports and seaports;
3) The ban of any new development and construction; and
4) A complete return to the stone age.
There is no realistic way, unlike what the greens want you to believe, to become carbon neutral without sacrificing your prosperity. Your wealth. Your happiness. Yours, and everybody elses, as well.
Animals aren't intelligent creatures. Wild animals wouldn't know if humans suddenly decided to "rejoin nature" and their quality of life certainly wouldn't improve. They don't have the concept of contrasting values, or any value for that matter. Humans do.
As said by "Chips Whitesugar" on Whinging in New Zealand:
"If everyone in New Zealand dropped dead tomorrow, the change in the rate of greenhouse gas production would be negligible, hardly worth all the hand wringing going on within the 'environmental' concerns within NZ ... NZ shouldn't cripple itself economically to gain a moral high ground on this issue. That would be stoopid."
So Richard, do you believe NZers should sacrifice their prosperity, their wealth and their happiness for creatures that would gain nothing if we did so? Being a multinational company CEO and multibillionaire, would you sacrifice your prosperity, your wealth and your happiness for creatures that would gain nothing if you did so?
7 comments:
There's no need to exaggerate.
At a rough guess, 20% of NZ's CO2 emissions come from coal-fired power stations, like the Huntly power station.
We could replace our existing coal-fired power stations with nuclear power stations (and also not build any new ones, like the proposed coal-fired Marsden B station), thereby reducing our CO2 emissions by 20%.
This would not mean "the ban of any new development and construction" (in fact, it would require removal of existing bans), nor would it mean "a complete return to the stone age".
Richard Callum did not exaggerate. He spoke rationally.
"Carbon neutrality" means that we produce NO CO2. No CO2 production means a totally crippled economy and a return to the Stone Age.
You are right that nuclear power stations would produce less CO2, but that still leaves us well short of carbon neutrality. In fact they'd solve another problem: our power shortages, which will eventually get so bad only nuclear power stations will be able to solve them.
This would not mean "the ban of any new development and construction" (in fact, it would require removal of existing bans), nor would it mean "a complete return to the stone age".
Actually the only way to stop the production and use of coal powered stations is to ban them so such a thing would be banning of new development and a ban on using existing development.
Furthermore, to achieve carbon neutrality we need to stop ALL means of carbon production not just the use of and creation of coal powered power stations. Some of those coal producing industries don't have "cleaner" alternatives unlike coal powered stations.
Don't listen to Kane.
the only way to stop the production and use of coal powered stations is to ban them
He's not a libertarian.
"Carbon neutrality" means that we produce NO CO2.
And he's an idiot.
He's not a libertarian.
To be exact I am a student Objectivist.
And he's an idiot.
Oh, I didn't know interpreting words literally was idiotic. :-P
"'the only way to stop the production and use of coal powered stations is to ban them'
He's not a Libertarian"
Well, would you honestly expect the industry of today, which still very much relies on the burning of fossil fuels, to self-regulate itself to impose a ban upon the burning of fossil fuels?
One of the problems with nuclear power in NZ is that we need money-lots of money-to keep it up to scratch-unlike NZ's current abysmal energy infrastructure. Also, it would probably be way over budget, and would encounter heaps of opposition. If the price comes down, however, I thing a solar power station would be good in Marlborough and the Hawke's Bay.
^^^BTW, my question was aimed toward Richard.
Yeah, well i don't know about Richard, not being a mind reader and all, but I figured it was aimed at him.
Post a Comment