Untrue statements as boilerplate

Stuff reports:

A group of more than 100 New Zealanders, including two former All Blacks and musician Neil Finn, has written an open letter to New Zealand Rugby saying it is going against its own leadership principles by making a major deal with an oil, gas and plastics company.

Good luck to those who have signed the open letter.

But where is the open letter that complains about all the emissions policies which the government says will cut emissions but don’t?

Just yesterday, for example, the government announced it will spend $13 million on a welter of new projects. Together these projects will reduce emissions by exactly zero tonnes because every one of them is in the ETS cap.

Thousands of officials continue not to understand that if an emissions cap decides total emissions then anything that is not an emissions cap does not affect total emissions. This advanced logic continues to elude public servants.

I’m sure former All Blacks are penning their outrage as you read this.

Stuff ends its article with this:

No, Stuff. The Earth is not basically on fire. It has warmed by 1 degree since 1850. The IPCC says so.

Untrue statements aren’t just in the news. They’re boilerplate.

2 thoughts on “Untrue statements as boilerplate

  1. Matt is there a word missing or something? “anything that is not an emissions cap does not affect total emissions”. This phrase doesn’t seem to make any sense.

    Meanwhile the dishonesty of practically everyone over this issue continues and I am glad you are calling them out. As a certified lunatic I am still of the opinion that since New Zealand’s share of this issue is less than 0.2 per cent of the total, we can afford a bit of honesty: the real reason this country is involved in this at all is because we need to be for diplomatic reasons that in the long run can affect the economy. The reality however is that whatever we do in NZ to reduce emissions changes things not at all. It’s not because we are good but because we are tiny.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hi Steve, I probably should have said it better. What I meant was if an emissions cap decides emissions, then policies which work under that cap cannot have any effect on overall emissions. Either the cap is binding, or emissions policies are binding, but it cannot be both.

      I take your point on our small share. I have taken the view that our emissions targets, and how we deliver emissions targets, are separate issues. I have taken the targets which Parliament voted for in 2019 as given, and just focused on the question of how we deliver those targets. Most of what the government is doing is not contributing at all to successful delivery of targets. I’m happy to point this out without wading into the debate over targets.

      Thanks for your support!

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s