This will make it more difficult for a woman to have children and return to work…Well-off people will continue to have children of course. Some people who can’t afford it will persist in having them, this is an unintended side-effect and very regrettable, because it will increase poverty and hardship etc.

Which is of course where the current statistics show you to be incorrect; in that we already have those effects occurring in a disproportionate manner. If you comprehended my posts on this subject above you would see that it is precisely the issue that “Well-off” people are not having children - while those in borderline poverty situations are having more. Given that this has a high correlation with the introduction of the distortions I allude to above (although the effects of WFF are yet to be statistically proven) I would see a restructure of these as being of paramount importance.

In fact the single best measure that I could see would be to allow the income of a family to be split across all family members for the purpose of taxation measurement.

iiq: I was not talking about discouraging population growth - I was talking about removing the current artificial incentives to population growth that are creating a disproportionate drain on our ecology.

In fact, social engineering is always with us. Different laws, combined with economic conditions, provide incentives and disincentives in various, sometimes unintended ways. It’s always good to recognise and discuss these effects.

You would need to enumerate the specific “artificial incentives” you want to remove.

If the current fecundity rate (2.1 children per woman) is too high for you, then you could try eliminating all tax advantages for having children (but in 2000, when I last lived in NZ, there were none, which I found rather shocking!), and eliminate any sort of subsidies for child care, for both client and care provider. This will make it more difficult for a woman to have children and return to work, which means that many women will choose (with regret) not to have children, or have fewer, or have them later. Well-off people will continue to have children of course. Some people who can’t afford it will persist in having them, this is an unintended side-effect and very regrettable, because it will increase poverty and hardship etc.

But it looks like you’ve got the answer to that problem :

My right to drive…
Similarly my right to procreate should be coupled to my responsibilities.

You’ve outed yourself as a big-time authoritarian, by putting these two rights on the same level. The right to procreate is an absolute right, not subject to licensing by government or society. Thankyouverymuch.

My comment was directed at the necessity of using coal to create steel, but at the end of all of it, the quantity of carbon released in the manufacture of steel is not (I think) one we need to worry about unless the process used is quite primitive.

We’ll nail down the easy ones first in any case. This one is hard and the gain is small.

respectfully
BJ

Like uk_kiwi, it strikes me that a whole bunch of people who preach sustainability tend to jet and drive around a huge amount to get to all their talkfests. Even Al Gore’s movie shows him endlessly walking through airports, in limousines and helicopters. Sure the movie was supposed to be carbon neutral in the end, but surely Gore could be a role model? His movie could have tried to make teleconferencing look glamorous, instead of limousines.

On another point - how has NZ’s immigration policy been consistent with sustainability? I don’t see it myself. Govt seems to have been preaching sustainability while (with the other hand) trying to get large numbers of people to add to the human population here - requiring large numbers of houses, appliances, cars, commercial and industrial space - energy, resources, pollution etc. A case of govt saying all the right things while doing the opposite?

Note too, that renewable alternatives to aviation fuel aren’t that hard to create. Low carbon doesn’t mean no carbon is used, it only means that the carbon balance isn’t tweaked.

The tall order is to change, but the taller order is to continue as we are now…

Somebody has to start somewhere. We’re here.

respectfully
BJ

“Simply put, it’s a tall order to change the way the world runs…”

Yes!

However, that must not be used (or be allowed to be used) as an excuse to delay, or not adequately implement what needs to be done.

Too many are saying “But why should I do this if others don’t?
and “I’m not going to do it until everyone else does”
… etc etc and (boring) etc!

We have our work cut out to persuade our “fellow travellers” on this Planet that everyone’s cooperation at all times will be needed for us to deal with this one!

heh don’t mind me I was just being a little facetious, it strikes me as slightly funny that Mr Gore and other leaders jet around the world to tell us we need to stop jetting around the world!

As for concrete & steel, they require vast amounts of coal and gas to make both products, aluminium is slightly better. And low carbon alternatives to petrol and aviation fuel would require some sort of massive breakthrough in biofuels or massive breakthroughs in nuclear fusion and energy storage technology.

Simply put, it’s a tall order to change the way the world runs…

Hmmm… how much carbon is in concrete… and how does it get out of the concrete if it is in there. Steel is characterised by it’s carbon content, but it is part of the alloy. The steel has to rust away before it can release any. Aluminium does not contain any carbon. Oil based products will get more expensive as peak oil screws the overuse of plastics into an inflationary spiral, so we won’t ne worrying too much about that as there are marginal substitutes already available… just a little too expensive to compete with the cheap plastics we use now. Gas fueled heating is in a similar place as the plastics…. wood pellet fueled heating is growing in popularity as a result, and we’ve had roads for a lot longer than we’ve used gasoline. What makes you think we can’t work out an low carbon alternative to the gasoline powered IC engine? Or the 747?

Everything you mention has a perfectly feasible low or zero carbon replacement waiting in the wings.

The Green party is not a party of neo-luddites. There may be some individual Greens who would qualify, but they don’t define the party. Apparently they’re all you’re willing to see, but they don’t run the party.

Preconceptions and misconceptions…. those are things that Greens have to work harder to eliminate from the public mind and from public accounts.

respectfully
BJ

IMAO the species needs both the lesson and the leap if it is to live long enough to learn.

respectfully
BJ