Planet Rugby Forum

booji boy wrote:

Kahu wrote:I'm no scientist but with the exception of sailing I'd imagine the fact the only resistance aeroplanes encounter is air would make them far more fuel efficient than ships.

So that you can sleep soundly at night you should cancel your air ticket knowing you've done your bit to reduce carbon emissions (safe in the knowledge that plane will still fly with an empty seat or somebody else sitting in the seat you gave up).

True. But if he spent the time it would have taken for the flight driving round round the regions stopping cows from burping through "cow hypnosis" he would be saving the world

Kahu wrote:I'm no scientist but with the exception of sailing I'd imagine the fact the only resistance aeroplanes encounter is air would make them far more fuel efficient than ships.

You have to work it out on a per-tonne basis. A small cargo ship can transport orders of magnitude more cargo than even the biggest cargo planes. You're talking 20,000 tonne v 100 tonne. And that's a small one.

deadduck wrote:

Kahu wrote:I'm no scientist but with the exception of sailing I'd imagine the fact the only resistance aeroplanes encounter is air would make them far more fuel efficient than ships.

You have to work it out on a per-tonne basis. A small cargo ship can transport orders of magnitude more cargo than even the biggest cargo planes. You're talking 20,000 tonne v 100 tonne. And that's a small one.

Where it gets a bit iffy

You have to get the plane in the air using jet engines, which takes a lot

Guess it depends on how much emissions there are from diesel compared to aviation fuel

Geezes I can't believe I am even bothered to think about this

It's really not that controversial

deadduck wrote:It's really not that controversial

So the whole world should abandon air travel?

The Greens telling us to stop flying won't make a sod of difference if I stop traveling by air but the planes keep flying.

We don't have to abandon air travel

Just find either alternative fuels or alternative engines

The US military has recently developed a high grade jet fuel derived from plant biomass instead of coal. A similar product could find itself used in the commercial airfreight and airline industry within the decade.

And there was some American university ( I forget which one) recently developed a working aircraft prototype that flies on electric ion propulsion (no fuel, no moving parts, just a battery). Now that one is probably 50+ years away from becoming anything other than a proof of concept, but you get the point.

deadduck wrote:We don't have to abandon air travel

Just find either alternative fuels or alternative engines

The US military has recently developed a high grade jet fuel derived from plant biomass instead of coal. A similar product could find itself used in the commercial airfreight and airline industry within the decade.

And there was some American university ( I forget which one) recently developed a working aircraft prototype that flies on electric ion propulsion (no fuel, no moving parts, just a battery). Now that one is probably 50+ years away from becoming anything other than a proof of concept, but you get the point.

It is all a bit of a crock of shit really. What do they use to create the extra electricity needed?

We have just had the govt agree to pay for the inter island ferrys to have car chargers...........powered by the ferrys fuel sucking engines

Livestock contribute 4% globally to Greenhouse gasses , but yet its all we ever hear in NZ . We are the world leaders in efficient red meat production and are about to be taxed for that ? while the inefficient producers just carry on regardless .
Apparently our meat landed in Europe has a lower carbon footprint than stuff grown locally , i heard that on a farming radio show so may be a bit skewed . But if even close that is ridiculous as the European product is also subsidised .

The environmental issues with red meat are change of land use not carbon production. Agriculture only comprises 12% of greenhouse gas emissions, and while the majority of that comes from cows, its still minuscule compared to the roughly 40% that comes from industry.


The plant based protein option is a genuine game changer , NZ is well positioned to take advantage , but i think we need to keep producing high quality GRASS FED product that the consumer wants and we are in a position to provide .

Hareaway wrote:Livestock contribute 4% globally to Greenhouse gasses , but yet its all we ever hear in NZ . We are the world leaders in efficient red meat production and are about to be taxed for that ? while the inefficient producers just carry on regardless .
Apparently our meat landed in Europe has a lower carbon footprint than stuff grown locally , i heard that on a farming radio show so may be a bit skewed . But if even close that is ridiculous as the European product is also subsidised .

The environmental issues with red meat are change of land use not carbon production. Agriculture only comprises 12% of greenhouse gas emissions, and while the majority of that comes from cows, its still minuscule compared to the roughly 40% that comes from industry.


The plant based protein option is a genuine game changer , NZ is well positioned to take advantage , but i think we need to keep producing high quality GRASS FED product that the consumer wants and we are in a position to provide .

It is true

As a country, as I said our official contribution is 0.17% globally, and half of that is natural, non human, so if livestock globally is 4% then stuffing our farming industry, to have it filled with a less efficient countries farming, tends to seem a tad dim

How many greenhouse gases did Mammoths, Wooly Rhinos, Moas and all the other megafauna humans apparently wiped out produce? Maybe cows are just restoring the natural balance.

Holy shit my retarded shower thought actually makes sense:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/relay.nati ... ns-science

Yeah, I have a hard time believing hunter gatherers caused the sort of climatic calamity of the younger dryas.



An asteroid hit makes a lot more sense.

At the end of the day our current PM says its her nuclear free moment and the greens call it their WW2

Must be pretty amazingly scary

Man In Black wrote:Feels pretty typically small minded of the Greens to just say 'fly less' rather than lets figure out a way to still fly without doing as much damage to the environment. As if I'm going to start holidaying in Margate over Spain.

The Greens do seem to not do themselves favours in terms of credibility on these things

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... ravel.html

Climate Change Minister James Shaw spent most on international travel

The Green Party's co-leader James Shaw spent more on international air travel than any other minister, new data shows.

The Climate Change Minister had $77,771 approved for international travel from October to the end of December, compared to $54,487 for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, data from the Department of Internal Affairs shows.

No other minister's international travel expenses came close to Mr Shaw's total. The second highest was the Prime Minister, followed by Energy Minister Megan Woods and Finance Minister Grant Robertson, respectively.

In comparison to Mr Shaw, his Green Party colleague, Conservation Minister Eugenie Sage, had $48,981 approved for international air travel, along with just $1853 approved for Women's Minister Julie Anne Genter and $411 for Jan Logie.

The Government's confidence and supply partner, the Green Party, is known for its anti-carbon stance and hailed the Government's decision to end offshore oil and gas drilling.

When asked why his international travel expenses were so high, Mr Shaw told Newshub he happened to attend multiple international climate change events during that time.

A spokesperson for Mr Shaw explained how he had attended the Global Climate Action Summit held in San Francisco, as well as the Katowice Climate Change Conference in December in Poland where talks ended with a deal on putting the Paris Agreement into practice.

The spokesperson said the minister also passed through London on his way back to New Zealand from Poland for a forum on Pacific climate change issues.

Mr Shaw told Newshub: "I understand that as Climate Change Minister, I have to weigh up the value of my travel. These events last year were significant international climate change conferences. They allow us to put New Zealand's case to the international community."

He said New Zealand, as a small nation, needs to have a voice at the global table to represent the Pacific, and "that sometimes means having to attend these events".

He also highlighted that the events he attended present networking opportunities.

The highest international travel expenses for a New Zealand First minister went to leader Winston Peters who had $49,378 approved, followed by Defence Minister Ron Mark at $48,373.

Dark wrote:

Man In Black wrote:Feels pretty typically small minded of the Greens to just say 'fly less' rather than lets figure out a way to still fly without doing as much damage to the environment. As if I'm going to start holidaying in Margate over Spain.

The Greens do seem to not do themselves favours in terms of credibility on these things

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... ravel.html

Climate Change Minister James Shaw spent most on international travel

The Green Party's co-leader James Shaw spent more on international air travel than any other minister, new data shows.

The Climate Change Minister had $77,771 approved for international travel from October to the end of December, compared to $54,487 for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, data from the Department of Internal Affairs shows.

No other minister's international travel expenses came close to Mr Shaw's total. The second highest was the Prime Minister, followed by Energy Minister Megan Woods and Finance Minister Grant Robertson, respectively.

In comparison to Mr Shaw, his Green Party colleague, Conservation Minister Eugenie Sage, had $48,981 approved for international air travel, along with just $1853 approved for Women's Minister Julie Anne Genter and $411 for Jan Logie.

The Government's confidence and supply partner, the Green Party, is known for its anti-carbon stance and hailed the Government's decision to end offshore oil and gas drilling.

When asked why his international travel expenses were so high, Mr Shaw told Newshub he happened to attend multiple international climate change events during that time.

A spokesperson for Mr Shaw explained how he had attended the Global Climate Action Summit held in San Francisco, as well as the Katowice Climate Change Conference in December in Poland where talks ended with a deal on putting the Paris Agreement into practice.

The spokesperson said the minister also passed through London on his way back to New Zealand from Poland for a forum on Pacific climate change issues.

Mr Shaw told Newshub: "I understand that as Climate Change Minister, I have to weigh up the value of my travel. These events last year were significant international climate change conferences. They allow us to put New Zealand's case to the international community."

He said New Zealand, as a small nation, needs to have a voice at the global table to represent the Pacific, and "that sometimes means having to attend these events".

He also highlighted that the events he attended present networking opportunities.

The highest international travel expenses for a New Zealand First minister went to leader Winston Peters who had $49,378 approved, followed by Defence Minister Ron Mark at $48,373.

Hes certainly doing his best to change the climate , oh and i understand he feels he must attend these things but if he was really concerned im sure they could video conference with nearly zero carbon footprint .

Yeah but its complete and utter bollocks isn't it as the planes he flew on would have flown anyway with or without him. Virtue signaling bullshit.

Obviously

He just became a need for why there are so many , as a passenger

Like the trying to have it both ways though

Hareaway wrote:

Dark wrote:

Man In Black wrote:Feels pretty typically small minded of the Greens to just say 'fly less' rather than lets figure out a way to still fly without doing as much damage to the environment. As if I'm going to start holidaying in Margate over Spain.

The Greens do seem to not do themselves favours in terms of credibility on these things

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics ... ravel.html

Climate Change Minister James Shaw spent most on international travel

The Green Party's co-leader James Shaw spent more on international air travel than any other minister, new data shows.

The Climate Change Minister had $77,771 approved for international travel from October to the end of December, compared to $54,487 for Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, data from the Department of Internal Affairs shows.

No other minister's international travel expenses came close to Mr Shaw's total. The second highest was the Prime Minister, followed by Energy Minister Megan Woods and Finance Minister Grant Robertson, respectively.

In comparison to Mr Shaw, his Green Party colleague, Conservation Minister Eugenie Sage, had $48,981 approved for international air travel, along with just $1853 approved for Women's Minister Julie Anne Genter and $411 for Jan Logie.

The Government's confidence and supply partner, the Green Party, is known for its anti-carbon stance and hailed the Government's decision to end offshore oil and gas drilling.

When asked why his international travel expenses were so high, Mr Shaw told Newshub he happened to attend multiple international climate change events during that time.

A spokesperson for Mr Shaw explained how he had attended the Global Climate Action Summit held in San Francisco, as well as the Katowice Climate Change Conference in December in Poland where talks ended with a deal on putting the Paris Agreement into practice.

The spokesperson said the minister also passed through London on his way back to New Zealand from Poland for a forum on Pacific climate change issues.

Mr Shaw told Newshub: "I understand that as Climate Change Minister, I have to weigh up the value of my travel. These events last year were significant international climate change conferences. They allow us to put New Zealand's case to the international community."

He said New Zealand, as a small nation, needs to have a voice at the global table to represent the Pacific, and "that sometimes means having to attend these events".

He also highlighted that the events he attended present networking opportunities.

The highest international travel expenses for a New Zealand First minister went to leader Winston Peters who had $49,378 approved, followed by Defence Minister Ron Mark at $48,373.

Hes certainly doing his best to change the climate , oh and i understand he feels he must attend these things but if he was really concerned im sure they could video conference with nearly zero carbon footprint .

Well as Minister responsible he's on Government business , despite whatever debate we may have on the merits of personal attendance vs video conferencing.

He's not off to Bali for his neice's 3rd wedding.

I reckon there's zero chance of a letup on air travel. I suppose that's one thing we will all have to work around simply for the convenience of when we need it.

I fly once a year on a return trip. I don't feel guilty about it.

That one is going to have to stay. If a few cities have to sink and the polar bears have to adapt to the forest then so be it.

I did read somewhere NZ is prime spot for electric planes though when that is developed, short flights presumably, so not all bad.

Video conferencing is no substitute for meetings in person, and I’m sure he ticks the carbon offset option when booking through airnz.co.nz

grouch wrote:Well as Minister responsible he's on Government business , despite whatever debate we may have on the merits of personal attendance vs video conferencing.

He's not off to Bali for his neice's 3rd wedding.

So what if he was? Seriously how would him not attending his neice's 3rd wedding in Bali help offset climate change? The plane will be flying anyway. It's not like him and the whole wedding party are chartering a private jet ffs!

Do the Greens seriously think that by a few of us choosing not to travel by air the worlds airline's are going to reduce the size of their fleets and the number of scheduled flights all around the world?

Imagine the incredible wealth in sorting that one out though. Replacing the entire fleet of the worlds airline industry with something better.

There's also local council elections too which are going to ramp up. Went home to the Wairarapa in the weekend and caught up with some friends who advise this lot are putting in candidates for election on to the local council:

http://www.ponatahi.school.nz/creation/

They claim their intention is to sort out high rates. But I'm not so sure. They are state integrated so how can they teach creationism as science?

sonic_attack wrote:Imagine the incredible wealth in sorting that one out though. Replacing the entire fleet of the worlds airline industry with something better.

It's already happening to a large degree. Everything from new planes being more fuel efficient and having a longer range (more time at peak efficiency) to using lighter materials where possible including for minor items like cutlery.

Good to know that so many posters on here care about the environment.

Tehui wrote:Good to know that so many posters on here care about the environment.

I'd be surprised if most people didn't. It's how to solve environmental issues that is usually what causes disagreement. The Greens have a cause that everyone should be able to get behind, but they ruin it by too often coming accross as anti science nutcases.

So I am watching a few Australian news shows and there are a few commentators bemoaning the fact "New Zealand hasn't included agriculture in their [net zero emissions target]"???

I haven't really been following this but is that talking about the 95% emissions thing about agriculture?

sorry I am a bit out of the loop with this climate change thing.

There's economic benefit to converting to renewable energy sources. I don't know why we're not in on the solar panel frenzy that will come - Apart from the fact we have a 0.2% solar uptake
It's not like we don't have coal or silica sand needed to produce the cells. The entire planet is going to want a continual supply of them, is it impossible to believe we couldn't produce something the world needs, produce a product that is a market leader?

No one knows what the water cycle is going to do, we're already down the road altering it. That's a commodity we're likely to have an oversupply of.
Time to start thinking of New Zealand as a business, look at the government creating industries for a work ready labour force. Look outside our primary industries and add things to benefit us.

Auckman wrote:So I am watching a few Australian news shows and there are a few commentators bemoaning the fact "New Zealand hasn't included agriculture in their [net zero emissions target]"???

I haven't really been following this but is that talking about the 95% emissions thing about agriculture?

sorry I am a bit out of the loop with this climate change thing.

Yes, and there's room to move, a small portion been discussed in this thread already. What we do have is a long history of Agriculture Science who're capable and probably amongst some of the best on the planet.

What we do have, is over 80% renewable energy driving our electric grid already. We're well ahead of the game on global standards. We're actually sitting pretty good overall.

sonic_attack wrote:

Auckman wrote:So I am watching a few Australian news shows and there are a few commentators bemoaning the fact "New Zealand hasn't included agriculture in their [net zero emissions target]"???

I haven't really been following this but is that talking about the 95% emissions thing about agriculture?

sorry I am a bit out of the loop with this climate change thing.

Yes, and there's room to move, a small portion been discussed in this thread already. What we do have is a long history of Agriculture Science who're capable and probably amongst some of the best on the planet.

What we do have, is over 80% renewable energy driving our electric grid already. We're well ahead of the game on global standards. We're actually sitting pretty good overall.

nice.

Fat Old Git wrote:

Tehui wrote:Good to know that so many posters on here care about the environment.

I'd be surprised if most people didn't. It's how to solve environmental issues that is usually what causes disagreement. The Greens have a cause that everyone should be able to get behind, but they ruin it by too often coming accross as anti science nutcases.

Greens not alone in this.
There's an appalling lack of scientific and real world knowledge amongst our political and legal classes.

At the start of the match last night I noticed a shot in the stands of Michael Jones in the company of John Tamihere.

Interesting political statement.

Next up another crack at driving the Coke Cola mobile around high schools?

fudge em both .

Pacific wrote:At the start of the match last night I noticed a shot in the stands of Michael Jones in the company of John Tamihere.

Interesting political statement.

Not really.

booji boy wrote:

grouch wrote:Well as Minister responsible he's on Government business , despite whatever debate we may have on the merits of personal attendance vs video conferencing.

He's not off to Bali for his neice's 3rd wedding.

So what if he was? Seriously how would him not attending his neice's 3rd wedding in Bali help offset climate change? The plane will be flying anyway. It's not like him and the whole wedding party are chartering a private jet ffs!

Do the Greens seriously think that by a few of us choosing not to travel by air the worlds airline's are going to reduce the size of their fleets and the number of scheduled flights all around the world?

Well that brings up a pretty weird bit of double standards

The Greens insist the country drastically reduce our 0.17% world emissions that will have no affect on global emissions at all, as we have to be seen to be at the forefront no matter what

Now you are arguing he doesn't have to be seen to make an effort personally with emissions as it doesn't change global emissions, and this is suddenly ok.

Dark wrote:

booji boy wrote:

grouch wrote:Well as Minister responsible he's on Government business , despite whatever debate we may have on the merits of personal attendance vs video conferencing.

He's not off to Bali for his neice's 3rd wedding.

So what if he was? Seriously how would him not attending his neice's 3rd wedding in Bali help offset climate change? The plane will be flying anyway. It's not like him and the whole wedding party are chartering a private jet ffs!

Do the Greens seriously think that by a few of us choosing not to travel by air the worlds airline's are going to reduce the size of their fleets and the number of scheduled flights all around the world?

Well that brings up a pretty weird bit of double standards

The Greens insist the country drastically reduce our 0.17% world emissions that will have no affect on global emissions at all, as we have to be seen to be at the forefront no matter what

Now you are arguing he doesn't have to be seen to make an effort personally with emissions as it doesn't change global emissions, and this is suddenly ok.

I don't give a fuck what he does quite frankly. I'm just saying it won't make a sod of difference either way (the planes will still be flying with or without him).

Downtown Community Ministry executive director Stephanie McIntyre says the new funding means more people can be kept from falling into homelessness.
The Government has announced a $54 million housing accessibility and services package to prevent and reduce homelessness.

Associate Minister of Housing Kris Faafoi and Minister of Social Development Carmel Sepuloni made the announcement in Wellington on Sunday.

It will fund initiatives to support at-risk individuals and whānau to stay in their homes while also providing additional wraparound services.

The Government has announced a $54 million housing accessibility package to prevent and reduce homelessness.


"These initiatives are part of this Government's pledge to end homelessness and improve the wellbeing of New Zealanders and their whānau through safe, warm, dry homes," Faafoi said.


"As part of our work on homelessness we are expanding the Sustaining Tenancies programme. It ensures that tenants who may be at-risk of losing their tenancy receive practical support to help them get back on track."


Sustaining Tenancies has been funded $6.6m over two years to support up to 550 at risk households a year.

The initiative provides non-financial assistance that could include budget advice, property maintenance, and mental health and addiction support.


"MSD has identified a distinct group of people that face a range of complex issues that are a barrier to finding and keeping a home of their own, such as mental health and addictions, criminal history, or family violence", Sepuloni said.

"We will be supporting these people building their resilience and wellbeing, to break the cycle of homelessness through targeted on the ground support.

"The Government is investing $31 million over the next four years for 67 intensive case managers and navigators to work with these people and a further $16 million for increased social services."

The Ministry of Social Development's intensive case managers will provide one-on-one support for clients.

Navigators will be contracted from local community organisations and will provide extra support when required. They would work with health providers, government agencies and non-government organisations.

The initiatives would be phased in from October this year. The services would be available nationwide but would focus on areas most affected by homelessness: Northland, Auckland Hamilton, Rotorua, Napier, Hastings and Lower Hutt.

Downtown Community Ministry (DCM) executive director Stephanie McIntyre said the new funding for initiatives like the Sustaining Tenancies programme would go a long way to help keep people off the streets.

DCM had been involved in a two-year trial of the Sustaining Tenancies programme and had been able to assist 100 tennants, though the trial had reached further when family members were taken into account.

"We know that studies tell us that it costs about $65,000 for a person to remain homeless and for an investment that is more in the order of $5000 to $10,000 we can support people who sometimes have lengthy backgrounds of homelessness and who are holding on by thier fingernails to their flat. This makes the difference to enable them to not only sustain their flat but thrive in their life."

Had abit to do with downtown, great outfit .

Seneca of the Night wrote:This is a grown adult. A man almost as old as Guy Smiley. But it's embarrassing. Note the date.

https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/19-10 ... ssion=true

I’m looking forward to having a decent minister of health

Ummm, about this one, Mr Wilson... we need a word.

Reserve bank taking a look at a cashless society.

https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/notes-and-coins/future-of-cash

The Future of Cash – Te Moni Anamata
Cash use is falling, but some of us rely on it more than others. There’s no obligation on any person or organisation to give out or accept cash (except to receive payment for a debt). Declining cash use is one of several pressures on the cash system which involves the many organisations and individuals who move, store, and use cash. The cash system includes the Reserve Bank – Te Pūtea Matua which wants to ensure its own vaulting and cash operations are best suited to the future.

The Reserve Bank is encouraging Cash Conversations – He Kōrero Moni about the future of cash in New Zealand. This section provides information and ways so that you can kōrero moni with us and others concerned for the futures of cash use and the cash system, and their impact on New Zealanders.

Slippery slope I reckon.