The problem with Climate Change …
Most of the Climate Change criticism is based on the fact that CO2 levels were MUCH higher in the past. That is absolutely correct.
And completely misses the point.
Throughout most of the Earth’s history, carbon dioxide levels have generally changed very slowly. That gave organisms and their ecosystems sufficient time to adapt to climate change through both evolution and migration.
Most of the change from 280 ppm to 421 in 2022 happened in less than 200 years. The present atmospheric concentration of CO2 is the highest for 14 million years.
To put that into context: 14 Million years is longer than it took for apes and humans to evolve from monkeys. Do you think humans would have been able to evolve in just 200 years?
To put the problem into an easily understood picture:
Imagine I throw a tiny lead ball at you. Are you afraid?
Now imagine I use a gun to shoot that lead ball at you - THAT is Climate Change.
If you understand the difference SPEED makes, then you start to understand the threat that climate change is.
Many plants and animals are unable to cope with the rapid change - we are already knee deep in a mass extinction that rivals the extinction of the dinosaurs.
Many of us can see that for themselves. When I was a kid windscreens used to be splattered with insects, and every 100 km you had to stop at a petrol station to clean the windows.
But not anymore.
Insect numbers have plummeted by up to 96% in places - not only in industrialised nations but even in “untouched” areas like the Costa Rican rain forest. The importance and effect of pollinators disappearing should not be under-estimated.
The biggest effects of global heating are currently felt at the BOTTOM of the food pyramid (eg the take up of CO2 into the oceans leads to acidification that makes building skeletons from dissolved Calcium carbonate near impossible), and the effects will not propagate gradually and slowly up the chain but suddenly and catastrophically when you reached the tipping point.
Because the ability of the ecosystems to compensate is being steadily eroded (from multiple sides, eg pollution, exploitation, etc), and while it takes a few hundred years for the changes to reach a tipping point, when it tips EVERYTHING depending on it tips too.
Most plants and animals will come up with new varieties that might be able to cope better - but that doesn’t prevent a population collapse, it just means the species might be able to rebuild and still be around in a few thousand years.
But for many species this will not be enough - because as a population they depend on a plentiful supply of other species for food.
The food we eat is produced in dirt that developed into fertile soil over sometimes tens of thousands of years. Alluvial plains for example. The most productive areas are coastal areas. Which is a small percentage of land area. Where do you get your food when these areas become too dry / wet / hot / cold / unstable / submerged for agriculture?
So the question for most humans will be: “Would you mind not eating for a few thousand years?"
Will Humans survive?
Humans - yes.
Humanity - doubtful.
Because it is just a question of WHEN, not IF, the human population will collapse like the environment they depend on around them.
And you can have faith that humans will react to the problem like this:
Rock'in with Elvis by Mike Cole
The Memories of Elvis Fan Club invite you to our 1st Elvis Social for 2026. We are excited to have our own Mike Cole back at the Te Atatu RSA on Saturday 28th February at 7.30pm. Cost only $20pp. Tickets are on sale at the RSA or reserve through Jackie 0274901126. So lets see you with your dancing shoes on and that great smile as we start off 2026 with a bang.
Poll: As a customer, what do you think about automation?
The Press investigates the growing reliance on your unpaid labour.
Automation (or the “unpaid shift”) is often described as efficient ... but it tends to benefit employers more than consumers.
We want to know: What do you think about automation?
Are you for, or against?
-
9.4% For. Self-service is less frustrating and convenient.
-
43.5% I want to be able to choose.
-
47.1% Against. I want to deal with people.
Even Australians get it - so why not Kiwis???
“Ten years ago, if a heatwave as intense as last week’s record-breaker had hit the east coast, Australia’s power supply may well have buckled. But this time, the system largely operated as we needed, despite some outages.
On Australia’s main grid last quarter, renewables and energy storage contributed more than 50% of supplied electricity for the first time, while wholesale power prices were more than 40% lower than a year earlier.
[…] shifting demand from gas and coal for power and petrol for cars is likely to deliver significantly lower energy bills for households.
Last quarter, wind generation was up almost 30%, grid solar 15% and grid-scale batteries almost tripled their output. Gas generation fell 27% to its lowest level for a quarter century, while coal fell 4.6% to its lowest quarterly level ever.
Gas has long been the most expensive way to produce power. Gas peaking plants tend to fire up only when supply struggles to meet demand and power prices soar. Less demand for gas has flowed through to lower wholesale prices.”
Full article: www.theguardian.com...
If even Australians see the benefit of solar - then why is NZ actively boycotting solar uptake? The increased line rental for electricity was done to make solar less competitive and prevent cost per kWh to rise even more than it did - and electricity costs are expected to rise even more. Especially as National favours gas - which is the most expensive form of generating electricity. Which in turn will accelerate Climate Change, as if New Zealand didn’t have enough problems with droughts, floods, slips, etc. already.
Loading…
