Gareth Morgan – impressive talk, but questions remain

We went along to hear Gareth Morgan last night. We aren’t the type to go to a finance talk, so it wasn’t that. He is touring the country, talking about his trip to Antarctica, and raising money fro a pest-eradication programme on a sub-Antarctic island.

I was prepared to ask the obvious question: how does he justify, cranially, his involvement in growth economics, with his conservation efforts.

I didn’t. The man spoke too sincerely, and too thoughtfully, for that to be a valid question. A case of someone being too proactive, to knock. He has a better grasp of Climate Science, than anyone outside the science profession; with the perhaps exception of Gwynne Dyer. His graphic of the warming Southern Ocean (the temperature differential is much bigger at the poles) was irrefutable. Continue reading

Sir Peter Gluckman – CSA – cognitively dissonant?

Sir Peter Gluckman was on National Radio last night, giving a speech/lecture, part of a Kim-Hill-hosted series.

I’ve mentioned his lack of ability to join the dots before, hereabouts, so it was interesting to hear him joining some – quite accurately – then dropping the ball in spades.

Continue reading

Kim Hill again – was there no good reporting in the week between?

I’ve said it before – we have only one reporter in this country, who ‘gets it. There are plenty of others who could be called ‘intelligent’, and to that could be added ‘enough’. They could get there IF THEY SO CHOSE.

In that list, I include Jim Mora, who’s pathetic Panel efforts this last week just make you wonder. The question about those folk – and I regard Mora as at least as cognitively-capable as me – is whether they are totally knowing but in denial, or seriously capable of genuine between-the-ears cognitive dissonance.

I’ve mentioned Joanne Black (Listener, Panel) in that list before. Opined that “I think there are too many people in the world”. Good on you Joanne, I urged at the speakers on the wall – and? Surely the flip-side of ‘too many people’ is ‘not ‘enough resources’. It’s not rocket science. And – if there aren’t enough resources, then the ability of the future to underwrite debt has to be some degree of short-fall. But – she goes on to enthuse about her house (I wouldn’t mind betting it’s old, and unsustainable in energy terms) do-up. Maybe hers was done with cast up-front – but most weren’t.

Closer to home, an ODT (Truth is part of their Mission Statement) man rejected an OP/ED piece from me, because “Folk would choke on their muesli”. That’s a long way from their avowed goal, if my OP/ED contained ‘the truth’.

This morning, Kim did a brilliant wee interview with a 16-year old (after 10.am). So on to it. He understood Peak Oil, realized we had to morph early, If he can do it, so clearly, there is no excuse for Mora. Mora has an obligation (the News of the Day in a Different Way?) to ascertain truth. If public radio can’t do it – who will?

 

Why do I care? Does it matter?  The answer to that is “Do you think our society owes it to future generations to give them a chance at life (not just our standard, but any) or do you think we’ll be extinct at some point, and it doesn’t matter which?”

 

I’d like to have a crack at the first option. It probably has collateral bonuses for almost every other species on the planet too. Roll on the raising of awareness. Roll on more fearless reporting. Good on you, Kim. How long before the ‘silence Lauder’ ethos organizes a ‘silence Kim’ one?

 

 

 

Kim Hill – brave. Guy McPherson. Brave too. Radionz Saturday 11.05

Well done Kim Hill. Easily the smartest Journo in the country, and the only one going anywhere near the truth of what is hitting us.

McPherson could be Jennie and I. No difference = or bugger-all – when you work it out. Like Orlov, he understands Jevons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

very well, and suggests that a fast crash will leave more chance for those who follow. Some folk complained that Hill chopped-in too often – but they will be those who understand, and who wanted to listen to one of their own kind. Interviewing – from a basis of ‘extracting the truth’ – needs to ask the hard questions, and attempt the trip-up. His reply re flying (you used fossil fuels to get here) was classic. How can we have a country being removed from the truth (NIWA / Lauder silencing / Steven Joyce / Tertiary ‘funding’) and yet there is the information, on National Radio.

Clearly, the current Govt can’t have such comments going mainstream – imaging the consternation: “You mean my mortgage won’t be repaid, my investments will be worth progressively less, and I won’t get a pension?”  Watch for National Ratio to get knobbled soon. Can’t have this truth stuff getting about, now, can we?

 

Monbiot got it wrong.

When I read the Monbiot thing;

http://www.monbiot.com/2012/07/02/false-summit/

 

I shook my head in disbelief. How can folk not see numbers over time? Nobody thought that Peak Oil was the end of oil, nor of fossil fuels – we’ll do ersatz oil from coal until the trading stops, for goodness sake. How can one so capable of words, be so incapable of conceptualization?  Peak Oil is essentially a half-way point, the key element being the maximizing of the flow-rate. Meaning; the maximm amount of work that can be done each hour, day, month or year. There have been some good return-of-service(s) from some:

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-07-04/enough-fossil-fuels-fry-us-all

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-07-04/treehugger-monbiot-and-peak-oil-over

I can’t add anything to that; except to ask the question: Could it be that brains which can compare relativity and exponential concepts, weren’t needed in the fight/flight stage of evolution, and have survived by chance? That there are a majority who just can’t ‘get’ the exponential function? I would explain the masses who swallow the ‘growth forever’ lie. It would also explain the masses who accept being screwed by interest – to the point where they give (gave; it’s all over, at this point, most mortgages will never be repaid) half their lives to a parasitic ‘bank’.

But Monbiot – who has written some good stuff – misses this one in spades.

a grand day out – well, in…..

We had a Sustainable Energy gathering this afternoon. Folk who have been part of Sustainable Living groups, and we had to stop the applications at 25 (house size being the factor!). If there is anything better than talking about what you’re enthusiastic about, to folk eager to listen, I don’t know of it. The last folk left at dusk, and I suspect we’ll see many – most – of them again.

Interestingly, there were fewer folk wanting to look up at the pelton wheel (from underneath) than from other visits. Equally interestingly, the questions were as thoughtful as I’ve ever heard. First time build-energy vs running energy vs demolition energy has been discussed like that.

So – we’re mellow. Good to see the young folk too – thinking before they build. The weather came right (the core temp had been low after a week of shyte) and the house did it’s stuff – passive solar at it’s best. I’d do that every day of the week, if I could. The baking wasn’t half bad, either……   Thank you to everyone who came – we enjoyed it!

The archdruid – usually good, this is superb

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.co.nz/

Here are a couple of excerpts:

“the Limits to Growth team avoided the fixation on detail that so often blinds people to systems behavior on the broad scale. Within the simplified model that resulted, it became obvious that limitless growth on a finite planet engenders countervailing processes that tend to restore the original state of the system. It became just as obvious that the most important of those processes was the simple fact that in any environment with finite resources and a finite capacity to absorb pollution, the costs of growth would eventually rise faster than the benefits, and force the global economy to its knees”.

“The one exception is the financial sector, since increasing the amount of paper value produced by purely financial transactions involves no additional capital, resources, and labor—a derivative worth ten million dollars costs no more to produce, in terms of real inputs, than one worth ten thousand, or for that matter ten cents. Thus financial transactions increasingly become the only reliable source of profit in an otherwise faltering economy, and the explosive expansion of abstract paper wealth masks the contraction of real wealth”.

 

Well worth the read – as he so often is.