Unfortunately, for those still contemplating an
uncertain future, the time is not yet right being able to view the next 12
months with anything other than dread.
After all, most of those who are suffering unimaginable hardship are doing so not because of problems of their own making.
Some would say that the economic and social
disruption is simply the result of a blind faith in an energy source that has
outlived its usefulness. We are told that the reason for our current climate
related problems is because mankind has refused to acknowledge the need to live
and work in harmony with nature - the consequences of which have finally caught
up with our wrong headed, selfish decision making.
I personally have difficulty with the attendant
notion that our troubles are all because of self inflicted wounds or that this
round of climate change is pretty much all the result of mankind’s indulgences
that have upset the equilibrium needed for a peaceful coexistence.
The Climate Change zealots are not prepared to
concede that the current adjustments to global climate is attributable to
anything other than mankind’s excessive use of fossil fuels and our only hope
for averting extinction is to place a total ban on its future use.
They say (with compelling evidence) that the science
is settled and that anybody who disputes that claim should be banished from any
leadership role as a heretic that has no place in our future planning.
My alternative view is that, while we argue about
things we can’t prove beyond reasonable doubt, the opportunity to deal with the
reality of climate change based on what we know to be true and in a manner that
allows for the necessary adjustments to be made while accommodating those who
have no choice, goes begging.
So, there can be no doubt we are at a crossroads
with our decision making and it is perhaps ironic that the positive choices we
have at our disposal are mostly based on lessons we should have learned from
the climate related disasters we endured only 12 months ago.
Thankfully, we are in a position to make the changes
necessary in our respective communities that will enable us to live in harmony
with nature. Some of us may even end up looking back at last year as being the
catalyst for much needed change to the way we make a living. Who would have
thought.
Actually, we are left to contemplate a future that
hadn’t forced the changes which would have proved untenable. Surely that
realisation has to be a good thing.
But it is over to us as to whether we use this break
in the clouds wisely and unselfishly.
Future generations will not regard us kindly if we
muck it up. We won’t get another chance.
Clive Bibby is a commentator, consultant, farmer and community leader, who lives in Tolaga Bay.
8 comments:
Clive, the climate will do whatever it will do and we, mere mortals will have no say. In 100 years time the climate will be a little warmer, or a little cooler or much the same.......take your pick.
History is and will judge our witch burning climate panic zealots badly. The floods and storms will still come and go as they have done so for millenia. The people of the day will add or remove a paper thin layer to combat the 1 or 2 degree change. The protesters stuck to the road will have fossilised and be totally worthless. Peter
Greta Thunberg and ilk use outlandish language to gain precedence . The MSM exaggerate the issue with "boiling point' and similar news headlines dividing the nation. I prefer to consider those who practically consider the issue as climate thinkers allowing pragmatic discussion.
However notwithstanding the new tri party coalition government gives hope for sanity and salvation of New Zealand, the prime minister is going to have to define his understanding of ZERO CARBON (my emphasis). His support of Zero Carbon would ruin all NZ business and food production in one season and ultimately bring all urban dwellers to death without water, food, sewerage , and employment if the government stopped the use of fossil fuels in NZ.
Mr Luxon needs to moderate or define his stance on Zero Carbon without delay.
"Climate related problems " what an absolute load of rubbish...... be honest and call it weather. I live beside the Clutha river and was severely flooded by it in 1978 with 1.5m of water due to weather they called it back then. That flood was tiny compared to the 1878 flood that took out Port Molyneux harbour. The 1878 flood was tiny compared to a flood a few hundred years previous that split the river and cut the new Koau branch. No fossils being burnt then.
Clive, are you aware of Ian Wisharts storm analysis where Gabriel was not as big as several storms occurring in the late 1800’s and early 1900's? Peter
As a Climate Change non-zealot myself (and EV owner) I applaud Clive Bibby's insightful thoughts. How reasuring, as compared to his extraordinary praise for Donald Trump - an irrational Climate Change denier!
JONATHAN SPINK
Thanks Jonathan Spink(s)
I never promise to be all things to all men.
If you are as old as me, you may well remember being amazed that even the Greatest of all time - Muhammad Ali, could have an off day - being beaten in a shock result by your namesake Leon in a split decision.
But, unlike the great boxer l try to be consistent and don’t apologise for what you see as a contradiction in my view of Trump.
Trump is a flawed human being, just like and probably more so than most of us but that shouldn’t mean we don’t acknowledge his leadership qualities when America needs him more than at any other time in modern history. His style of leadership is different, that’s all - probably because he isn’t a politician but it was certainly effective when he was in the Whitehouse.
Who else would you care to suggest has the known ability to restore the US to a position of strength that its adversaries obviously fear. — a position that has so dramatically been eroded since he left office.
Can I ask, in today's world where exhaust fumes form cars & diesel engines and other fumes from open air generators, cows 'farting' and wood or coal smoke is impure, - now - why did the "climate zealots" of today not start their campaigns back in the 1950's?
It is from then, that America started to develop a "love affair" with gas guzzlers - fume emitting air conditioners, on the top roof of the high risers, every one "went mad about oil", so did the Arab Nations that produced it - Money (think & replay in your head the Abba song - Money, Money it's a rich man's world).
Cows, now, sorry Dairy Farmers, but if back then cow farts where to become a problem, well lets not have a Dairy Industry - Yup, no milk to help kids develop, no milk powder for New Mothers who could not breast feed - butter would be "bad" as un healthy food item.
With due regard to Clive Bibby and farming community - "back then" meat could have been "banned" - yup can see Clive B and Ewen McGregor (and all others) growing "soy bean" for human consumption! Breath Clive!!
If all, what is happening now, could have started in the 1950's, we would be a happy world - yup - ill, depleted human systems, dead, dying, with un curable diseases, land areas "jungles", rodent infested towns/cities, our suicide rate beyond the pale - and a revenue depleted Country -I could go on.
Those who believe Chloe Swarbrick & Greta Thunberg, et al, well I feel very sorry for you.
Anonymous, or Peter, or whatever your name is; you say “Ian Wisharts storm analysis where Gabriel was not as big as several storms occurring in the late 1800’s and early 1900's. I’m finalising a book on the weather events that have hit Hawke’s Bay and researched the subject. I can assure you that Gabriel in its intensity (within 24 hours), rainfall level and geographic extent was the biggest storm to hit at least the North Island since records began with European settlement.
To Ewan McGregor - if you comeback and read this - there was a
media "comment" after Gabriel - that the effects of that 'storm could be tracked back to a volcano erupting north of Tonga' - the statement implied, "what goes up (water volume) must come down". It also went on to state, that atmospheric wind shift's, in the equatorial band, may have/could have moved the water in any direction.
The other interesting factor mentioned, that also covered, that it was interesting, that 'following the first rain fall, in January, that the second one followed but of greater intensity, driven by an unprecedented wind force.
What was also "implied" that weather bureaus, who would have "been monitoring weather patterns from the equatorial domain (given time of year and specific weather predicted) - "seemed to have missed the onset of both 'water bombs' - which was considered an unusual aspect for any weather bureau.
Post a Comment