Jump to content

New Zealand defense report says climate change greatest security risk


webfact

Recommended Posts

New Zealand defense report says climate change greatest security risk

By Charlotte Greenfield

 

2018-12-06T045433Z_1_LYNXMPEEB509Y_RTROPTP_4_CLIMATE-CHANGE-ACCORD.JPG

FILE PHOTO: Protesters march to urge politicians to act against climate change in Paris, France, October 13, 2018. REUTERS/Philippe Wojazer

 

WELLINGTON (Reuters) - New Zealand released a defense policy statement on Thursday calling climate change its greatest security threat and stressed the importance of the issue to the geostrategically contested Pacific region, which is seeing increased influence from China.

 

The assessment came on the heels of a defense policy earlier this year that warned China's rising influence in the South Pacific could undermine regional stability, drawing a complaint from the Asian giant.

 

"It identifies climate change as one of the most significant security threats of our time, and one that is already having adverse impacts both at home and in New Zealand's neighborhood," said Defense Minister Ron Mark in an emailed statement.

 

The report said that states could look to use assistance on climate change as a way to boost their influence and access in the region.

 

"Working with Pacific Island countries on climate change, including in the security sphere, is an opportunity to learn lessons from each other while further strengthening strategic partnerships," it said.

 

That underscored comments from Samoa's Prime Minsiter Tuilaepa Aiono Sailele Malielegaoi who told Reuters in November that Australia and the United States should follow the lead of China and do more to prevent climate change, which would devastate many island nations.

 

"Traditional powers in the region have this anxiety about China's intentions and so they are looking to assure Pacific islands that they are listening to their concerns," said Wesley Morgan, an expert in Pacific politics at the University of the South Pacific in Suva, Fiji.

 

The emergence of China as a key aid donor and major lender for Pacific countries has led to friction between the Asian giant and western nations, which boiled over at a recent APEC summit in Papua New Guinea.

 

China's foreign ministry has said it is helping Pacific nations with much needed assistance according to their wishes and is promoting their social and economic development.

 

New Zealand's defense minister said he was using the assessment on climate change to inform defense spending and investment plans set to be released next year.

 

New Zealand's government led by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has put combating climate change at the heart of its policies and on Wednesday announced a NZ$100 million ($68.62 million) investment fund to spur growth in projects to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

 

(Reporting by Charlotte Greenfield; Editing by Michael Perry)

 
reuters_logo.jpg
-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-12-06
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply

So now they call it "Climate Change" instead of Global Warming. People are delusional to believe that they can stop climate change. Climate has been changing from the birth of planet Earth and it will continue changing either you want it or not. However I am big supporter for making our our Earth less polluted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So here's how this will play out.

 

People on the left: Claim climate change is proven by science. That despite many predictions of impending doom that have passed, that all future predictions WILL come to pass.

People on the right: Claim climate change is a con of some sort, that it's unproven, that even if it is true - it's not man-made & that it snowed somewhere recently.

 

This is 100% a political issue. You pick your affiliation & then you choose which 'science' you want to believe. 

 

So nothing will ever be done and it's basically a matter of hope for the best. Fingers crossed, everyone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

54 minutes ago, Thunder26 said:

So now they call it "Climate Change" instead of Global Warming. People are delusional to believe that they can stop climate change. Climate has been changing from the birth of planet Earth and it will continue changing either you want it or not. However I am big supporter for making our our Earth less polluted.

 

Exclusive terms.

 

"Global Warming" is one.

 

It leads to "Climate change".

 

Mans effect on Global Warming is what some people question.

 

But apparently not the majority of those concerned with the scientific study of the phenomenon.

 

They seem to be pretty much convinced that man has influenced Global Warming.

 

Strangely, many people who are not scientists, but usually take their word for it when it comes to their explanations of thermo-dynamics, physics, biology, chemistry (including the distillation of petro-chemical products) astronomy, plate-tectonics, .....all sorts of scientific "stuff", think they shouldn't be believed.

 

Those people live their lives almost totally based on products and activities which are the result of the scientific revolution, scientific study, scientific development of mechanisms, objects and modes of existence.

 

Without Science no modernity, no cars, no motorcycles or airline travel, none of all the lovely gadgets and consumer products around which their lives revolve.

 

But this time they think that scientists may not be trusted or believed.

 

Perhaps because the conclusions the scientists have come to mean that they have to change their lifestyles, give up certain cherished objects and practices as a result and find that too horrible to countenance.

 

Rather as a child would be upset if they were told they could no longer play with their favourite toy(s).

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Enoon said:

But apparently not the majority of those concerned with the scientific study of the phenomenon.

I hear what you are saying and it makes sense. Unfortunately it is hard not to be a sceptic when so many of the expert predictions prove to be in error. 

Make the facts fit the narrative and I will be happy to support the measures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, pedro01 said:

So here's how this will play out.

 

People on the left: Claim climate change is proven by science. That despite many predictions of impending doom that have passed, that all future predictions WILL come to pass.

People on the right: Claim climate change is a con of some sort, that it's unproven, that even if it is true - it's not man-made & that it snowed somewhere recently.

 

This is 100% a political issue. You pick your affiliation & then you choose which 'science' you want to believe. 

 

So nothing will ever be done and it's basically a matter of hope for the best. Fingers crossed, everyone!

No. You don't get to pick which science. You get to pick science or pick non-science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Thunder26 said:

So now they call it "Climate Change" instead of Global Warming. People are delusional to believe that they can stop climate change. Climate has been changing from the birth of planet Earth and it will continue changing either you want it or not. However I am big supporter for making our our Earth less polluted.

What do you think global warming is?

 

It is a warming of the climate, therefore climate change...

 

If we don't change our behaviour the human race is in for rough times...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now I am sad.

I always thought that the biggest contributor to climate change was the gas created by all of the cows in NZ.

Therefore I wasn't too worried about my farting but now it seems that they are going to start blaming me again.

Damn.

:cheesy:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

What do you think global warming is?

 

It is a warming of the climate, therefore climate change...

 

If we don't change our behaviour the human race is in for rough times...

I think the reason for the name change was that even though the earth's atmosphere and seas will on balance get warmer, because of shifts in atmospheric and oceanic currents, some areas may actually get cooler. For instance if the Gulf stream gets seriously cooler or changes it's course thanks to Greenland's melting glaciers. northern Europe could get a whole lot colder.

But the argument that "climate is changing all the time" is just a silly semantic game. I hope that the people who play at it are willfully obfuscating and aren't actually conned by such a childish ploy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thunder26 said:

So now they call it "Climate Change" instead of Global Warming.

Global warming is an aspect of climate change... did y’all miss the last few decades?

 

Even if you don’t trust science you should minimally understand it if you wish to discuss it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Climate change is better term than global warming. I recall some study that suggested if polar ice caps melt, it could dilute the gulf stream enough that it stops circulating warmer waters up past Europe, which would lead to much harsher winters. Might even end European football as we know it. That possibility would be a disaster of biblical proportions to worldwide fans.

 On a slightly more serious note, yes climate has always been changing, even back to when world was almost totally covered in ice. History is not applicable however. This is the first time humans have been around to be one of the causal agents.

 If it is all due to natural cycles and such, then perhaps we should find out what we could do as humans to lessen the impact.

Or we can just let the cookie crumble with all the deaths, political upheavals, wars etc that would be a by product of the change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pedro01 said:

This is 100% a political issue. You pick your affiliation & then you choose which 'science' you want to believe. 

Except that science is not a “belief” - it is a process, and currently that process has led 98% of experts in the field of study to agree. Despite what you’ve been told this ain’t a 50-50 crapshoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, DoctorG said:

Unfortunately it is hard not to be a sceptic when so many of the expert predictions prove to be in error. 

The fact that the predictions are happening faster than predicted causes you to doubt? Strange perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

I think the reason for the name change was that even though the earth's atmosphere and seas will on balance get warmer, because of shifts in atmospheric and oceanic currents, some areas may actually get cooler. For instance if the Gulf stream gets seriously cooler or changes it's course thanks to Greenland's melting glaciers. northern Europe could get a whole lot colder.

But the argument that "climate is changing all the time" is just a silly semantic game. I hope that the people who play at it are willfully obfuscating and aren't actually conned by such a childish ploy.

The rise in temperatures [Global Warming} is fueling climate change. They are not different events but interlinked [as you say].

 

To try to separate the two and make out the environmentalist argument has changed, is just a disingenuous attempt to avoid admitting to the fact that the planet is undergoing changes caused by humanities behaviour.

 

Changes which if left unchecked, will prove catastrophic for us as a species.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mikebike said:

The fact that the predictions are happening faster than predicted causes you to doubt? Strange perspective.

No. What he and others like him do is cite some outlier prediction that is far more drastic than the consensus, or even worse, cite some newspaper headline, and then claim that this outlier prediction or headline was the consensus. It's a crap tactic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The rise in temperatures [Global Warming} is fueling climate change. They are not different events but interlinked [as you say].

 

To try to separate the two and make out the environmentalist argument has changed, is just a disingenuous attempt to avoid admitting to the fact that the planet is undergoing changes caused by humanities behaviour.

 

Changes which if left unchecked, will prove catastrophic for us as a species.

Also, it's a question of rate. Yes, the climate is always changing. But as far as can be detected, nothing in millions of years approaches the rate of change we are experiencing now. But for deniers, the fact of change is all the matters, not the rate. I wonder if they apply that reasoning to their finances. Whether an investment that pays off at 1% is fundamentally no different from one that pays off at 10%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Also, it's a question of rate. Yes, the climate is always changing. But as far as can be detected, nothing in millions of years approaches the rate of change we are experiencing now. But for deniers, the fact of change is all the matters, not the rate. I wonder if they apply that reasoning to their finances. Whether an investment that pays off at 1% is fundamentally no different from one that pays off at 10%.

 

1 minute ago, MaxYakov said:

I'd be worried about climate change as well, positioned where they are - there's another Ice Age due in 90,000 years or so!

A real live example of a someone who doesn't understand the question of rates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Thunder26 said:

So now they call it "Climate Change" instead of Global Warming. People are delusional to believe that they can stop climate change. Climate has been changing from the birth of planet Earth and it will continue changing either you want it or not. However I am big supporter for making our our Earth less polluted.

The last climate change, there was not 8 billion people on this planet. It will be quite messy, when the strongest going to secure their needs for the future. Most of us, is just deleted 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mikebike said:

My question has always been, “even if you don’t ‘believe’, why risk it.?” Good ecological practices aren’t really all that difficult. I don’t get the resistance.

Do you believe humans is capable to save the humanity? Look at the history, and tell me what metod is used for survivel? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Enoon said:

 

 

Exclusive terms.

 

"Global Warming" is one.

 

It leads to "Climate change".

 

Mans effect on Global Warming is what some people question.

 

But apparently not the majority of those concerned with the scientific study of the phenomenon.

 

They seem to be pretty much convinced that man has influenced Global Warming.

 

Strangely, many people who are not scientists, but usually take their word for it when it comes to their explanations of thermo-dynamics, physics, biology, chemistry (including the distillation of petro-chemical products) astronomy, plate-tectonics, .....all sorts of scientific "stuff", think they shouldn't be believed.

 

Those people live their lives almost totally based on products and activities which are the result of the scientific revolution, scientific study, scientific development of mechanisms, objects and modes of existence.

 

Without Science no modernity, no cars, no motorcycles or airline travel, none of all the lovely gadgets and consumer products around which their lives revolve.

 

But this time they think that scientists may not be trusted or believed.

 

Perhaps because the conclusions the scientists have come to mean that they have to change their lifestyles, give up certain cherished objects and practices as a result and find that too horrible to countenance.

 

Rather as a child would be upset if they were told they could no longer play with their favourite toy(s).

 

 

 

 

 

If only it were that simple. Even top scientists are divided on what is happening to the climate and why.

 

One thing is for sure: mass media scare stories about the imminent effects of global warming are a godsend for forcing through unpopular policies - such as the fuel prices hike in France which sparked the yellow jackets revolt.

 

They have also speeded up the stealthy global implementation of the UN Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 programmes, designed to take control to of all the planet's land and resources, including animals and humans. 

 

The only serious pushback against the programme - marketed under many different names under the umbrella of "sustainable development" - has been in the US, where this explanatory video was put together by protesters - who even then were clearly fighting a losing battle.

 

 

 

By the end of this century, if the architects of these programmes get their way, we will no longer be allowed to drive cars or own property or travel where we wish. Wildlife will run free in huge "green corridors" cleared of human occupation, while a much-reduced human population will be crammed into enormous mega high-rise, high-density, high-surveilance "smart cities" with all our needs provided, for rent, by the state.

 

If the language and concept sounds oddly familiar, they are. I saw much the same "communalist" system in operation when I visited the Soviet Union in the Seventies. You literally wouldn't want to go there. Neither, I guarantee, will your children and grandchildren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

If only it were that simple. Even top scientists are divided on what is happening to the climate and why.

 

One thing is for sure: mass media scare stories about the imminent effects of global warming are a godsend for forcing through unpopular policies - such as the fuel prices hike in France which sparked the yellow jackets revolt.

 

They have also speeded up the stealthy global implementation of the UN Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 programmes, designed to take control to of all the planet's land and resources, including animals and humans.  The only serious pushback against the programme - marketed under many different names under the umbrella of "sustainable development" - has been in the US,

where this explanatory video was put together by protesters fighting a losing battle.

 

 

 

By the end of the century, if the architects of these programmes get their way, we will no longer be allowed to drive cars or own property or travel where we wish.  Wildlife will run free in huge "green corridors" cleared of human occupation, while  the much-reduced human population will be crammed into enormous mega high-rise, high-density, high-surveilance "smart cities" with all our needs provided, for rent, by the state.

 

If the language and concept sound familiar, they are. I saw much the same communalist system in operation when I visited the Soviet Union in the Seventies. You literally wouldn't want to go there. Neither, I guarantee, will your children and grandchildren.

No, top scientists are not split on the question. Unless your definition of "split" is anything short of 100% unanimity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

Even top scientists are divided on what is happening to the climate and why.

Less than 1% of climate expert scientists are divided on "what".

 

"Why" has about a 95% rate of agreement.

 

More scientists believed we couldn't get to the moon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

mass media scare stories about the imminent effects of global warming are a godsend for forcing through unpopular policies

Why? Only an uneducated rube would believe those stories.

 

Industrial, farming, fishing military, and financial sectors all see to believe the science more than policy-making politicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Krataiboy said:

They have also speeded up the stealthy global implementation of the UN Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030 programmes, designed to take control to of all the planet's land and resources, including animals and humans.

????????????????????????????????

 

Wow. Now I get It!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Today marks the 3rd anniversary of the Paris Climate Accord, which was hailed as being a planetary saviour from the scourge of man-made global warming.

 

With standard Green/Left overblown hype, then-US president Obama called the day “a historic day in the fight to protect our planet for future generations. If we follow through on the commitments that this Paris agreement embodies, history may well judge it as a turning point for our planet.”

 

Some commentators were skeptical about the ability and willingness of countries such as China and India to do anything substantive to reduce CO2 emissions, but were howled down in the general euphoria.

 

So today, we discover:

 

‘We are in trouble.’ Global carbon emissions reached a record high in 2018.

 

India's emissions up 6.3% over last year, China up 4.7%, US up 2.5%, the gallant EU down 0.7%, rest of world up 1.8%. A complete bust, in fact. Nobody's doing anything.

 

With standard Green/Left overblown hype, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres said this week: "We are in deep trouble with climate change. It is hard to overstate the urgency of our situation, we are still not doing enough, nor moving fast enough, to prevent irreversible and catastrophic climate disruption.”

 

His speech reads like it was written by Prince Charles, or Bob Geldof. Or maybe Gwynneth Paltrow.

 

The best hope of avoiding some mild warming is not trying to cut CO2 emissions, but hope that the small but well credentialled group of scientists (Henrik Svensmark, Khabibullo Abdussamatov, in particular) who believe that observed solar inactivity is going to cause a sharp cooling, are correct.

 

Otherwise, the hot air in the atmosphere will be matched by more hot air from the activists, and the fearful types will have to up sticks and move to Norilsk.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...