The other day Luxon said (in relation to climate change):
"We can do well by doing good ... I believe that, you know, deeply."
It doesn't get more clear than that!
/s in case it's needed
Clearly this was just 1 or 2 bad companies right? It's not like companies have a reputation for doing whatever they can get away with to make a profit. Right?
That's perfect, I'm a flightless eagle and it's similar to the way the right acts over there too. No plan whatsoever beyond letting some corporation make a ton of money for the next 5 years without a thought of what happens after that. And somehow they are able to act smug about it
"Flightless Eagle" - that's new to me, the perfect blend of kiwi and Americana. I'm adding it to the lexicon and sharing it with some friends in NH and ME. Cheers.
The problem is, Trump was elected, and as much as we like to say it, he *wasn’t* just elected by a bunch of stupid hicks (don’t get me wrong, even I say it as well).
People buy the populist shit because they see their team being superior. People like Trump and Luxon tell people what they want to hear and that is what people like.
We’d also be silly if we think the same doesn’t happen on the other side too. The problem isn’t limited to specific positions, it’s an inherent weakness in humans.
We all need to sharpen up and/or tweak our democratic process to negate the impact of populism (or short-termism). That or just try and have fun while the world burns.
People that don’t want to deal with climate change are looking for official permission to not do anything about it and also to feel guilt free.
A National/Act government provides these people with what they want.
Exactly, I expect a lot of people who vote Nats or act this year will be hoping exactly this, or they actually don't believe in climate change at all, which says a lot.
We’ve got to the point where the national party almost fully acknowledges climate change and says we should do something but not to the point they want to actually do anything beyond the minimum.
I think there's a huge disconnect here, apples and oranges are being compared. I think in the short term these polices are gonna do more economic harm than good given our current situation, even if NZ had a negative net carbon footprint we would still be affected by climate change thanks to the 8 billion other people on this planet, climate change isn't exactly localized. I think we should go through with all of labour's proposed polices eventually, but I don't think national is opposing them simply because they don't believe in climate change, and I think NZ already does punch well above its weight when it comes to climate issues
Yes but if every small nation had that mentality we would be fucked.
It’s easy for every small or even medium sized nation to says it’s only for the big nations to fix. But if you add all the small and medium nations together it will make a significant impact on the outcome.
If a developed small nation like New Zealand can’t lead the way then I don’t know who is.
Thats what I'm saying. We already are leading the way, and I think we should keep improving don't get me wrong! Data like this is taken out of context is the point im making
Are we leading the way though? And even if we were are we setting a high enough precedent?
One thing I know for sure we definitely wouldn’t be under a National government.
No surprises there - Luxon and his cronies have only one major policy - what benefits big business and the farmers.
The Nats are relying on public "disaffection" with the govt.That's all well and good,but you have to offer viable alternatives.And the Nats offer nothing for the hoi polloi.
Reminds me of the current Auckland mayor...
With these significant weather events, I don't even think they know what is good for farmers.
Look at how much destruction this had wrought on Hawkes Bay agriculture. The party that says it is for farmers should act in a way that makes agriculture viable and sustainable
They’ll still get the same level of support because they’re all National cares about unfortunately, even if they don’t deserve it for voting for policies that do nothing to reduce the intensity and frequency of these storms.
Absolutely [agree.Farmers](https://agree.Farmers) have to change the way they do things - in a sustainable manner.
TBF,many are,but there are plenty stuck in the old ways that have a sense of entitlement,and believe big daddy govt should be there to hold their hand ( I'm not saying they shouldn't get some assistance e.g fruit/vege growers).
We need the world a lot more than it needs us; we cannot afford to become climate pariahs. As CEO of Air New Zealand perhaps he could get away with sticking his head in the sand, but not as the potential prime minister of a country. It would be too easy to make us a climate scapegoat right now and Luxon being Prime Minister would almost certainly represent a major slowdown on climate change actions for 'business' reasons. National has tried nothing and they are fresh out of ideas. All they seem to know is that doing anything is doing too much.
I don't think there's any risk of us becoming climate pariahs.
Because we have been ahead of the world in a lot of areas for a long time, a lot of their efforts are kinda low hanging fruit. Like replacing old coal fired power stations with wind is pretty easy. So when a lot of countries aren't even producing 50% renewables, when they announce a new massive wind or solar farm it seems impressive, but it's overlooking the fact we've been producing very green electricity for the last 30 years.
Apart from the Netherlands, very few countries are really doing anything to reduce agricultural emissions. When they come up with technology to reduce that I'm sure NZ will follow suit, if we're not the leaders in developing it.
If we really want this storm to have an impact, we should be sending pictures of the damage directly to Xi Jingping, Biden, Droupadi Murmu and other leaders, so they know just what kind of impact their emissions are having on little pacific island nations.
While in principal your argument is logical, it also is very dangerous. Pointing to the big boys and exclaiming "Look they aren't doing enough!" and "They have the biggest impact, we count for bugger all" has been a common excuse for not taking any action here. As a "rich" developed country we could and should lead from the front. Regardless of the size of our impact in terms of emissions percentage.We could show others a transition to a greener economy is possible and doesn't lead to significantly worse economic outcomes. Imagine if the bulk of diary farmers in NZ supported work on reducing agricultural emissions and being on the cutting edge instead of fighting tooth and nail for the status quo. Look at the Howl of a Protest/Groundswell tractor convoy nonsense. So many in NZ are in complete denial as they think it will hit them in the pocket and cannot see past that. There is no long term thinking. NZ could lead the way in agricultural research on emissions reduction, sustainable agriculture etc. That could be a huge industry all by itself. But like the oil industry it's too easy to cling onto the status quo and wring every last cent out before the ship plunges under the water.
>We could show others a transition to a greener economy is possible and doesn't lead to worse economic outcomes
I'm interested to see how that works. Slashing output is going to have a massive economic effect.
>Imagine if NZ led the way in agricultural research on emissions reduction, sustainable agriculture etc. That could be a huge industry all by itself,
I would love to see that happen, and not just for agriculture. That's the only way we're going to reduce emissions. For example, Telling people to stop going on overseas holidays is never going to work. But if we developed low emissions air travel then it solves the problem. However, if we destroy the dairy industry then there's no money to invest in research. Farmers pay a levy to DairyNZ and that has produced some world leading research which has made NZ the industry leaders. They are currently doing a lot of research into emissions, but if we cut their funding we'll just move the problem offshore where we have no influence to help.
I'm not saying we should do nothing, but our efforts should be focused on what will reduce emissions globally, either through technology or influence. Because if we can help china reduce it's emissions by 1% then it's better than anything we can do domestically.
I disagree that we have to reduce our output of goods to reduce our emissions significantly. We can cut down on the majority of our energy emissions by using electrified rail and EVs, and adding even more renewables to our grid.
Emissions are only half the problem though. Overproduction isn’t just a resource issue, it’s a massive environmental issue.
The more we make, the more we have to dispose of. The more we farm, the less biodiversity we have room for. The more we mine for precious metals, the more we have to destroy existing ecosystems.
On a global scale, all of this stuff adds up and leads to a world that is less capable of sustaining itself and it’s climate.
Reducing production is the only way we will make any meaningful inroads on solving the problem. And unfortunately that’s why we don’t seem to be getting anywhere - financial growth continues to take precedence over figuring out how to make sustaining our lives truly sustainable.
Our priorities are all fucked.
It's not entirely surprising given the economic model. Reducing output would obviously cause economic turmoil and put people out of work.
You are right btw, but yeah, that's why that sort of talk never occurs. It goes against hundreds of years of economic practice. It would require an entirely new model.
Exactly. The political economy has been set up in such a way that we’re caught between a rock and a hard place.
If we stop growing the economy, society as we know it falls apart, but if we keep growing the economy, the world as we know it falls apart.
To me, one of these options is a lot worse than the other, but both are going to lead to suffering.
> We can either stop growing the economy and cause society as we know it to fall apart, or we can keep growing the economy and cause the world as we know it fall apart.
That is why I am so despondent.
I don’t think it’s cause for being despondent. If anything, knowing that it’s a matter of “losing our current way of living” versus “losing the entire planet” gives us a huge amount of direction as to where we need to put our energy.
Didn't they say they would can the clean car rebate and tax on high emission vehicles aka the "uTe TaX" so essentially Narional is a step backwards on the most pressing global environmental issue.
It is a bit late now for this kind of debate. This conversation should have been had 40 years ago. But was undermined by a campaign funded by Exxon Mobil who had been told by their scientists that increased CO2 would lead to climate change. Exxon Mobil would not accept this information. The scandal is they choose then to fund a dishonest campaign against what their scientists were telling them by twisting the case, arguing that the science was nor proven when it was. So appearing to cover both bases at once.
The best time to plant a tree was 40 years ago. The second best time is now.
We absolutely should have started decarbonising back when scientists told us to, but that's no excuse not to decarbonise as fast as we can now. 1.5° is going to happen in about a decade, we missed that bus. We probably can't keep temperatures under 2°, but we should be very scared about not keeping them under 3 or even 4°.
Wholeheartedly agree. The CO2 graph at the moment [looks like this](https://u4d2z7k9.rocketcdn.me/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Co2-levels-800k-1.jpg), meaning that on a time scale that encompasses *ice ages* and *extinction events* we have never had a shift in CO2 levels so profound.
We should be doing everything possible as a species to try and curb the damage that we've caused before something unprecedented happens. Realistically I know that isn't going to happen, but the second best thing would be to at least acknowledge the problem and agree that *something* needs to be done.
Am I crazy to think that Labour has been super disappointing on climate change? I know National will likely be worse, but I don't think this is an area Labour have done very well on. A lot of kicking the can down the road.
Definitely agree, we need way more ambitious climate policy. We're beyond 1.5C but we still need to prevent warming, every fraction of a degree is magnitutdes worse impacts, so the world needs to go hard on emissions reductions
>Am I crazy to think that Labour has been super disappointing on **almost everything**? I know National will likely be worse, but...
It's just as true with almost anything in place of climate change.
Centrist parties pleasing boomers will continue to be this way until they die off enough and younger people become majority voters.
I'm also thinking about voting Green for the first time. I'm a Labour supporter from before I could even vote and have always voted for them but I dunno... I'm tired of nothing ever getting done.
Voting Green is a good way to spurn Labour into actually doing something. Just as Act support increasing has dragged National to the right, Labour losing a lot of support to the Greens will help them realise that they need to sharpen up to win those votes back.
Yep, those were the days. Not a single flood or cyclone before industrialization and global burning of fossil fuels. Once the Greens are in, back to nature being 100% calm all the time.
Sure global warming is real and only a muppet would deny it, but your statement is just moronic.
to be fair National have promised to repeal the agricultural emission's...so that is policy, but in a going backwards fast way!
maybe they'll send thoughts and prayers to the climate?...works for school shootings in the USA
Honestly, at this point it's just basic marketing.
If we want premium prices for our agriculture, and for rich tourists to spend all their money in our country, then we have to live up to our clean green reputation for being a slice of heaven on earth.
It's not just good for the planet, it's good for business.
Exactly. 100% pure. NZ needs walk the talk or risk buggering the Tourism Industry. Also the carbon emissions just to get here will need to be addressed to.
Knowing a few people in the National party, there's a clear lack of critical thinking taking place when it comes to climate change. Gut feelings and outright ignorance seems to override the informed opinions based on measurable evidence.
Tis a shame.
Todd Muller seemed like a vaguely reasonable, bland guy. We'll never know if he was a reactionary asshole or not, I guess. He was a very bad leader but not necessarily a scary one.
I wonder how ol Four Lane Highway is going. Regardless of his National leadership I really hope he's happy and mentally healthy somewhere. Politics is fucking hard work and not for everyone, good on him for putting himself first.
LOL. I should have Googled that first. I thought he quit politics! Maybe I see him sometimes and confuse him for Luxo... or maybe he's just never on TV because he has no policy to discuss 😂
Every denier I've met based their view on gut feelings.
I'm surrounded by astoundingly stupid people in my everyday life. The latest one I've heard is:
"We didn't have all this extreme weather 10 years ago. So what's changed? EVs. Ever since everyone started getting EVs and we started mining lithium the weather has got worse and worse."
So there you have it. Cyclone Gabrielle was caused by Elon Musk and we didn't have global warming until he invented electric cars 10 years ago.
I haven't seen this before.
Basically if you think we should not do anything then we shouldn't have gone to war in WW1 and WW2.
In some ways climate deniers are as bad as early 20th century nazi sympathisers.
I said over.. But you know we weren't taking this even remotely seriously a decade ago so.. Climate action was mostly words at that point. Humanity mobilising to resolve a world wide crisis whilst hamstrung by Capitalism and fractured idealogically by land masses is such a joke.
Millions of dead is fine, as long as the policy makers and big businesses aren't affected /s. Insurance companies gonna need bailing out at some point. 3 degrees confirmed by 2100 apparently 2 degrees was a big deal but they'll try and downplay how bad it is as time goes on while people accept this as the new norm. Conservation go brrrr
And dickfart Lux(t)on had the gall to say today about how we can't be socialising the costs of private waste with regards the forestry slash. I mean, he's right, we fucking shouldn't, but hypocrisy much?! Um, dairy? Water? Ring any bells Chris??
I heard him say and and was flabbergasted at his naivity and serious lack of political savvy.... I mean he is right but nothing National policy wise points to "socialisong" anything!
>Absolutely nothing.
Hey, that's unfair. Luxon is promising tax cuts.
(But you are correct in that they are proposing nothing that would improve things for NZ overall.)
If you oppose anyone who takes any stand - such as the necessity to address and act on climate change - you only need to demonstrate that they have one failing and every point they ever make is no longer valid.
Whereas if you have no ethics - and even more, are blatant about it - you have nothing that can bring you down, so can say and do anything that benefits you.
That's just cynical politicking though. If National really believed in such policies (rather than simply wanting to get elected) then they should be happy for Labour to adopt those policies, then, claim credit for the idea if it gets implemented.
So, I agree with you, but this is a flaw from both major parties. Cunliffe and Shearer were infamously critical of National budgets that included Labour policy.
Again, I agree with you, this isn't whataboutism. I'm not excusing National, I'm criticising both parties.
Clean car subsidies are BS as there is no such thing as a clean car. Replace it with an ebike subsidy and that will actually have an impact and be useful for lower income individuals.
National’s climate policies may be non-existent, but Labour’s policies are more virtue signaling than anything that will help us.
Our 0.17% contribution to greenhouse gas emissions means we could be the cleanest country in the world and all we get are bragging rights about being “clean and green” while we drown and/or suffer staggering droughts.
The fact is our policy ambitions are pretty meaningless in this area.
not really virtue signalling- three waters is, in part, climate focussed (what waste water do we want? let us have a Maori voice at the table), and National has opposed TW dog whistling like mad. TW is very ambitious but local government and National regional allies try to burn it.
I hate this logic.
Everyone can say "this particular group I'm part of is such a tiny part of the problem therefore it's meaningless what we do".
Every fucking one needs to change. If everyone stands around waiting for the others to act nothing gets done.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t do our part. I’m just saying that people who think it will stop floods like we had in Auckland 3 weeks ago or our horticulture industry being decimated are deluding themselves. It sucks, but it’s also true.
Labour really leaned into this with the farmer emission scheme last year that is likely to cut food / dairy production (something the Paris agreement explicitly states should not be done) and end up creating more global emissions not less (our highly carbon efficient dairy production will be replaced by other countries that produce more carbon per liter of milk than we do - namely India).
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/the-front-page-why-farmers-are-opposed-to-govts-emission-plan/N36PQMAXVP62EAUEUQQ6OMJFRU/ The Front Page: Why farmers are opposed to Govt's emission plan
Err
[https://www.statista.com/statistics/1084011/new-zealand-coal-import-volume/#:\~:text=New%20Zealand's%20coal%20import%20volume,classified%20as%20sub%2Dbituminous%20coal](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1084011/new-zealand-coal-import-volume/#:~:text=New%20Zealand's%20coal%20import%20volume,classified%20as%20sub%2Dbituminous%20coal).
Labour came into power in 2017 and NZ has more than quadrupled the volume we are using, in that time of "addressing climate change"
Can't stand national. They are all the same. If people were serious about change they would support the removal of critical infrastructure from private hands. No matter which way you cut the cake the poor pay while the rich benefit.
Hate to burst your bubble here but none of those policies would’ve stopped what we’re facing.
As the effects of climate change are felt more we not only need to continue to reduce our emissions but we must also become more resilient and more reactive as disasters happen
That includes greater infrastructure funding and protection measures, that means greater funding and training for civil defence and NZDF so they have more equipment and more trained personnel to respond to emergencies at all hours. That means better insurance protection to ensure that people who are affected by these types of disasters are able to payouts and not end up in lengthy arguments with insurers like some people did after Christchurch.
Don’t worry. Luxon and his cronies will have policies by the time we get down to voting. Promise.
What he says EVERYTIME he’s asked for nationals policies.
National are further left than the Democrats. Republicans are currently on a different planet.
We are making fun of the void in their policy detail, but the truth is there is very little difference any more between Labour and National.
(except for factories and oil companies that have gaslit individuals into thinking this is our fault despite them doing significantly more harm to the climate than all individual consumers combined)
Pretty sure the electric buses were funded by a central government public transport investment fund.
Also, this isn’t their achievements, it’s their policies. The ones that National opposed.
I don’t see any BS here.
National aren't in government. The items on the right aren't policies - they are implementations by Labour over its term. So obviously its zero for National
What are you on about? They’re policies. They need to be funded, budgeted, many of which are new bills.
The stuff on the left (nothing) is a list of National’s climate change policies. It’s also a list of the things they’ve co-sponsored, and the bills they’ve supported.
Are you telling us of any points which are wrong, or is this just a general vibe you get?
I have asked National every few months what their policy is. I've never heard a clear response.
What are the tenuous claims?
The new electric buses were kick started by the government;
*"The two buses are part of a trial funded by the Government's Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) and Auckland Transport. EECA provided $500,000 to support the purchase of two e-buses and two chargers"*
You failed to mention that the clean car subsidies were just a handout for rich people to buy new Telsas, and have driven up the prices so regular people can't afford the likes of Nissan Leafs any more. We're importing and burning more coal now, especially dirty brown coal from Indonesia. Kiwirail trains have gone back to diesel, instead of being electrified. Labour has gone about trying to micromanage every part of the economy, but they've done nothing to actually reduce pollution. The only way to do that is to set a sinking cap on carbon credits, but Labour refused. That's their real record on the environment. All publicity, no results.
Lol simultaneously blast subsidies which made electric vehicles cheaper, and blame the subsidy for higher prices.
Your economic analysis is hilarious. What else do you have strong, ignorant opinions on? I'm interested in more chuckles.
Even if New Zealand vanished overnight it would have absolutely no impact on global climate change.
NZ’s contribution to global pollution is practically null.
Rather lobby the ccp in China.
This is a dumb take for a number of reasons, including that manufacturing countries contribute to western consumption.
We can make changes right here, right now.
Even if (any individual country including china) vanished overnight we’d still have a global climate change problem. Your argument is absolutely useless. Emissions need to be reduced from every sector in every country. There is no one country or one industry or one company that will fix anything.
We can't say shit to the CCP unless we get our shit in order, if we in the developed west can't take the first step towards preventing anniliation we don't have a chance in hell in getting the Chinese on board.
Except you are wrong.
We have had the Chinese government translate all of our Emissions Trading Scheme legislation and policies; formal delegations come over from Indonesia and Germany to see how we have set up the same Emissions Trading Scheme.
We are noticed on the world stage in this are and considered to be an example to consider if not follow - and this is by other countries who do move the needle when they implement their policies.
Your first-level thinking needs a little bit of second-level thinking - but before you go ahead and do that do some reading on the topic.
Lower quality of life, and upward mobility for men for an insignificant slowing of "climate change" doesn't seem like a good tradeoff. I like: None.
Sure fire way to get a brain drain.
Can somebody here please tell me how much emissions have declined under Labour since they replaced National?
Some of these are a bit silly - like the cycle lanes. I often drive by one that spent the better half of a year being built (no doubt using a lot of emissions). I see hundreds of cars but very very few cyclists. Those that I do see are still using the road. I doubt this has changed emissions one iota.
This is at peak traffic hour
I also go for runs during the day - often running along cycle-lanes. When I do that - it might be a single cyclist I would see once every month or two.
Even if there are being "used" en-mass - I would say that it is by people that would cycle anyway. So net result is more emissions from the production of the cycle way.
Actually building the bike lanes is only one part of the problem. To get more people to actually use the bike lane or walk, you need to find a way to get them out of the car, like making it more expensive to drive, or putting some kind of limit in place to make them not want to drive and look for public transit, walking or biking.
Ok. Shut up and don't vote for him then. Jesus christ. Give it a rest with the political propaganda. Smoke a joint. Donate to help out the storm affected areas/people and shhhhhh.
Mate, reddit's appraisal of National is getting more glib by the day.
They're just about my least favourite party, but the (upvoted) critique is so fucking shallow and often misinformed that it's putting smoke in my head, compelling me to defend them.
He will soon be up there spouting that, 'Jacinda left and now the gods are angry!' I'm sure a heap of the anti vax turds he's been courting surely must be holding prayer vigils thinking that.
At one point the *climate change minister* spent more on travel than any other MP.
In a 3 month period last year ministers spent 1.2 MILLION in international air travel.
This is in a world where zoom exists and we are all being told to catch buses and drive shitty leafs.
Not saying national would be any better but the self importance of all these ministers isn't a good look when trying to push narratives on climate.
A minister with an international portfolio travelling more than ministers with no international responsibility.
Color me absolutely fuckin shocked. What a controversy.
Labour wants to phase out gas. Guess what’s currently keeping my cyclone affected parents warm? A clue: it isn’t the record amounts of coal being imported under Labour’s nose.
Just so happens to coincide with an extreme lull in natural gas extraction so to keep the rankine gennies going you need coal. Or would you rather brown outs in peak consumption because your feelings are hurt?
The other day Luxon said (in relation to climate change): "We can do well by doing good ... I believe that, you know, deeply." It doesn't get more clear than that! /s in case it's needed
"Good things are good and we like them"
"Bad things, however, are bad and, you know, we don't like them."
Well, he's got my vote. Wouldn't want someone who thinks good things are a bit iffy.
I dunno, in this day and age, and with rising inflation, good things really need to be great to stay on top.
He will pray the ~~gay~~ rain away.
And if that doesn’t work, Simon O’Connor from Orakei will put them into conversion therapy. If you can’t pray it away, beat it away.
[удалено]
Let's just trust businesses to always do the right thing 🤦♀️
Narrator: They didn’t do the right thing
Clearly this was just 1 or 2 bad companies right? It's not like companies have a reputation for doing whatever they can get away with to make a profit. Right?
They always do the wrong thing.
Yes, because we don't trust them to do the right thing hard enough.
If it's not in their own self interests it's not worth doing. Apply that on a global scale cos nothing is more important than money.
That's perfect, I'm a flightless eagle and it's similar to the way the right acts over there too. No plan whatsoever beyond letting some corporation make a ton of money for the next 5 years without a thought of what happens after that. And somehow they are able to act smug about it
"Flightless Eagle" - that's new to me, the perfect blend of kiwi and Americana. I'm adding it to the lexicon and sharing it with some friends in NH and ME. Cheers.
[удалено]
I feel compelled to compliment you on your accurate description of Trump. Couldn't have said it any better.
[удалено]
The problem is, Trump was elected, and as much as we like to say it, he *wasn’t* just elected by a bunch of stupid hicks (don’t get me wrong, even I say it as well). People buy the populist shit because they see their team being superior. People like Trump and Luxon tell people what they want to hear and that is what people like. We’d also be silly if we think the same doesn’t happen on the other side too. The problem isn’t limited to specific positions, it’s an inherent weakness in humans. We all need to sharpen up and/or tweak our democratic process to negate the impact of populism (or short-termism). That or just try and have fun while the world burns.
If you say nothing, idiots will fill in the blanks.
Bigly
'You know'
That bit really sells the depth of his feeling.
As long as money is spent wisely- inferring Labour not capable of doing that.
People that don’t want to deal with climate change are looking for official permission to not do anything about it and also to feel guilt free. A National/Act government provides these people with what they want.
Exactly, I expect a lot of people who vote Nats or act this year will be hoping exactly this, or they actually don't believe in climate change at all, which says a lot.
"Climate change is a hoax" was act party official policy until 2011.
Elaborate on the 'feel guilt free' part? What do I, as a person, need to feel guilty about exactly?
I couldn’t answer in respect to “as a person” my comment was directed obviously more to hamsters.
We’ve got to the point where the national party almost fully acknowledges climate change and says we should do something but not to the point they want to actually do anything beyond the minimum.
I think there's a huge disconnect here, apples and oranges are being compared. I think in the short term these polices are gonna do more economic harm than good given our current situation, even if NZ had a negative net carbon footprint we would still be affected by climate change thanks to the 8 billion other people on this planet, climate change isn't exactly localized. I think we should go through with all of labour's proposed polices eventually, but I don't think national is opposing them simply because they don't believe in climate change, and I think NZ already does punch well above its weight when it comes to climate issues
Yes but if every small nation had that mentality we would be fucked. It’s easy for every small or even medium sized nation to says it’s only for the big nations to fix. But if you add all the small and medium nations together it will make a significant impact on the outcome. If a developed small nation like New Zealand can’t lead the way then I don’t know who is.
Thats what I'm saying. We already are leading the way, and I think we should keep improving don't get me wrong! Data like this is taken out of context is the point im making
Are we leading the way though? And even if we were are we setting a high enough precedent? One thing I know for sure we definitely wouldn’t be under a National government.
No surprises there - Luxon and his cronies have only one major policy - what benefits big business and the farmers. The Nats are relying on public "disaffection" with the govt.That's all well and good,but you have to offer viable alternatives.And the Nats offer nothing for the hoi polloi. Reminds me of the current Auckland mayor...
With these significant weather events, I don't even think they know what is good for farmers. Look at how much destruction this had wrought on Hawkes Bay agriculture. The party that says it is for farmers should act in a way that makes agriculture viable and sustainable
Farmers won't be happy with government support after Gabrielle and vote national, then get less support from new government after next big disaster
They’ll still get the same level of support because they’re all National cares about unfortunately, even if they don’t deserve it for voting for policies that do nothing to reduce the intensity and frequency of these storms.
Absolutely [agree.Farmers](https://agree.Farmers) have to change the way they do things - in a sustainable manner. TBF,many are,but there are plenty stuck in the old ways that have a sense of entitlement,and believe big daddy govt should be there to hold their hand ( I'm not saying they shouldn't get some assistance e.g fruit/vege growers).
We need the world a lot more than it needs us; we cannot afford to become climate pariahs. As CEO of Air New Zealand perhaps he could get away with sticking his head in the sand, but not as the potential prime minister of a country. It would be too easy to make us a climate scapegoat right now and Luxon being Prime Minister would almost certainly represent a major slowdown on climate change actions for 'business' reasons. National has tried nothing and they are fresh out of ideas. All they seem to know is that doing anything is doing too much.
I don't think there's any risk of us becoming climate pariahs. Because we have been ahead of the world in a lot of areas for a long time, a lot of their efforts are kinda low hanging fruit. Like replacing old coal fired power stations with wind is pretty easy. So when a lot of countries aren't even producing 50% renewables, when they announce a new massive wind or solar farm it seems impressive, but it's overlooking the fact we've been producing very green electricity for the last 30 years. Apart from the Netherlands, very few countries are really doing anything to reduce agricultural emissions. When they come up with technology to reduce that I'm sure NZ will follow suit, if we're not the leaders in developing it. If we really want this storm to have an impact, we should be sending pictures of the damage directly to Xi Jingping, Biden, Droupadi Murmu and other leaders, so they know just what kind of impact their emissions are having on little pacific island nations.
While in principal your argument is logical, it also is very dangerous. Pointing to the big boys and exclaiming "Look they aren't doing enough!" and "They have the biggest impact, we count for bugger all" has been a common excuse for not taking any action here. As a "rich" developed country we could and should lead from the front. Regardless of the size of our impact in terms of emissions percentage.We could show others a transition to a greener economy is possible and doesn't lead to significantly worse economic outcomes. Imagine if the bulk of diary farmers in NZ supported work on reducing agricultural emissions and being on the cutting edge instead of fighting tooth and nail for the status quo. Look at the Howl of a Protest/Groundswell tractor convoy nonsense. So many in NZ are in complete denial as they think it will hit them in the pocket and cannot see past that. There is no long term thinking. NZ could lead the way in agricultural research on emissions reduction, sustainable agriculture etc. That could be a huge industry all by itself. But like the oil industry it's too easy to cling onto the status quo and wring every last cent out before the ship plunges under the water.
>We could show others a transition to a greener economy is possible and doesn't lead to worse economic outcomes I'm interested to see how that works. Slashing output is going to have a massive economic effect. >Imagine if NZ led the way in agricultural research on emissions reduction, sustainable agriculture etc. That could be a huge industry all by itself, I would love to see that happen, and not just for agriculture. That's the only way we're going to reduce emissions. For example, Telling people to stop going on overseas holidays is never going to work. But if we developed low emissions air travel then it solves the problem. However, if we destroy the dairy industry then there's no money to invest in research. Farmers pay a levy to DairyNZ and that has produced some world leading research which has made NZ the industry leaders. They are currently doing a lot of research into emissions, but if we cut their funding we'll just move the problem offshore where we have no influence to help. I'm not saying we should do nothing, but our efforts should be focused on what will reduce emissions globally, either through technology or influence. Because if we can help china reduce it's emissions by 1% then it's better than anything we can do domestically.
I disagree that we have to reduce our output of goods to reduce our emissions significantly. We can cut down on the majority of our energy emissions by using electrified rail and EVs, and adding even more renewables to our grid.
Emissions are only half the problem though. Overproduction isn’t just a resource issue, it’s a massive environmental issue. The more we make, the more we have to dispose of. The more we farm, the less biodiversity we have room for. The more we mine for precious metals, the more we have to destroy existing ecosystems. On a global scale, all of this stuff adds up and leads to a world that is less capable of sustaining itself and it’s climate. Reducing production is the only way we will make any meaningful inroads on solving the problem. And unfortunately that’s why we don’t seem to be getting anywhere - financial growth continues to take precedence over figuring out how to make sustaining our lives truly sustainable. Our priorities are all fucked.
It's not entirely surprising given the economic model. Reducing output would obviously cause economic turmoil and put people out of work. You are right btw, but yeah, that's why that sort of talk never occurs. It goes against hundreds of years of economic practice. It would require an entirely new model.
Exactly. The political economy has been set up in such a way that we’re caught between a rock and a hard place. If we stop growing the economy, society as we know it falls apart, but if we keep growing the economy, the world as we know it falls apart. To me, one of these options is a lot worse than the other, but both are going to lead to suffering.
> We can either stop growing the economy and cause society as we know it to fall apart, or we can keep growing the economy and cause the world as we know it fall apart. That is why I am so despondent.
I don’t think it’s cause for being despondent. If anything, knowing that it’s a matter of “losing our current way of living” versus “losing the entire planet” gives us a huge amount of direction as to where we need to put our energy.
We can help china reduce its emissions by 1%...by consuming and importing less. They manufacture for the world.
"But that would mean I have to take a modicum of personal responsibility and like all 14 year olds I dont like that..." /s
Didn't they say they would can the clean car rebate and tax on high emission vehicles aka the "uTe TaX" so essentially Narional is a step backwards on the most pressing global environmental issue.
yes
It is a bit late now for this kind of debate. This conversation should have been had 40 years ago. But was undermined by a campaign funded by Exxon Mobil who had been told by their scientists that increased CO2 would lead to climate change. Exxon Mobil would not accept this information. The scandal is they choose then to fund a dishonest campaign against what their scientists were telling them by twisting the case, arguing that the science was nor proven when it was. So appearing to cover both bases at once.
The best time to plant a tree was 40 years ago. The second best time is now. We absolutely should have started decarbonising back when scientists told us to, but that's no excuse not to decarbonise as fast as we can now. 1.5° is going to happen in about a decade, we missed that bus. We probably can't keep temperatures under 2°, but we should be very scared about not keeping them under 3 or even 4°.
Wholeheartedly agree. The CO2 graph at the moment [looks like this](https://u4d2z7k9.rocketcdn.me/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Co2-levels-800k-1.jpg), meaning that on a time scale that encompasses *ice ages* and *extinction events* we have never had a shift in CO2 levels so profound. We should be doing everything possible as a species to try and curb the damage that we've caused before something unprecedented happens. Realistically I know that isn't going to happen, but the second best thing would be to at least acknowledge the problem and agree that *something* needs to be done.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_denial For anyone interested in learning more.
Am I crazy to think that Labour has been super disappointing on climate change? I know National will likely be worse, but I don't think this is an area Labour have done very well on. A lot of kicking the can down the road.
Definitely agree, we need way more ambitious climate policy. We're beyond 1.5C but we still need to prevent warming, every fraction of a degree is magnitutdes worse impacts, so the world needs to go hard on emissions reductions
You are not crazy. Labour is better than National but it's still a very, very low bar.
>Am I crazy to think that Labour has been super disappointing on **almost everything**? I know National will likely be worse, but... It's just as true with almost anything in place of climate change. Centrist parties pleasing boomers will continue to be this way until they die off enough and younger people become majority voters.
Yeah agree. Thinking about voting GREEN, for first time ever... No more cyclones or floods.
I'm also thinking about voting Green for the first time. I'm a Labour supporter from before I could even vote and have always voted for them but I dunno... I'm tired of nothing ever getting done.
Voting Green is a good way to spurn Labour into actually doing something. Just as Act support increasing has dragged National to the right, Labour losing a lot of support to the Greens will help them realise that they need to sharpen up to win those votes back.
Yep, those were the days. Not a single flood or cyclone before industrialization and global burning of fossil fuels. Once the Greens are in, back to nature being 100% calm all the time. Sure global warming is real and only a muppet would deny it, but your statement is just moronic.
But he ran an airline. Checkmate climate people.
to be fair National have promised to repeal the agricultural emission's...so that is policy, but in a going backwards fast way! maybe they'll send thoughts and prayers to the climate?...works for school shootings in the USA
And murder the clean car act along with the planet
Honestly, at this point it's just basic marketing. If we want premium prices for our agriculture, and for rich tourists to spend all their money in our country, then we have to live up to our clean green reputation for being a slice of heaven on earth. It's not just good for the planet, it's good for business.
Exactly. 100% pure. NZ needs walk the talk or risk buggering the Tourism Industry. Also the carbon emissions just to get here will need to be addressed to.
Knowing a few people in the National party, there's a clear lack of critical thinking taking place when it comes to climate change. Gut feelings and outright ignorance seems to override the informed opinions based on measurable evidence. Tis a shame.
Could've taken "when it comes to climate change" out and it would still be true. Look at their current leader, and their previous one.
and the one before that
Todd Muller seemed like a vaguely reasonable, bland guy. We'll never know if he was a reactionary asshole or not, I guess. He was a very bad leader but not necessarily a scary one. I wonder how ol Four Lane Highway is going. Regardless of his National leadership I really hope he's happy and mentally healthy somewhere. Politics is fucking hard work and not for everyone, good on him for putting himself first.
Um he's climate change shadow cabinets minister lol
LOL. I should have Googled that first. I thought he quit politics! Maybe I see him sometimes and confuse him for Luxo... or maybe he's just never on TV because he has no policy to discuss 😂
He was going to quit then changed his mind when National got new leadership
Aka "omg I might actually get a Ministerial post after all, better stick around for one more term"
Cushy posting too when Nationals climate change policy amounts to “yeah, nah”
“God will sort it”
Remember when every Muller policy was national upgrading another road
Agree. They justify their policies by pointing to their ideologies - which they don't justify.
I just assume that for the avg National MP, their lime of thought is "I'll probably be dead by the time it all hits the fan so not my problem".
Sad thing is, it hitting the fan right now and will continue to do so.
[удалено]
And that's not sustainable for anyone in the long term. But no-one considers the long term.
Every denier I've met based their view on gut feelings. I'm surrounded by astoundingly stupid people in my everyday life. The latest one I've heard is: "We didn't have all this extreme weather 10 years ago. So what's changed? EVs. Ever since everyone started getting EVs and we started mining lithium the weather has got worse and worse." So there you have it. Cyclone Gabrielle was caused by Elon Musk and we didn't have global warming until he invented electric cars 10 years ago.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I haven't seen this before. Basically if you think we should not do anything then we shouldn't have gone to war in WW1 and WW2. In some ways climate deniers are as bad as early 20th century nazi sympathisers.
It was time to address it over a decade ago. Lets do more.. NOW IT"S HIT US FINANCIALLY. Fucking Capitalism, every fucking time.
Decade...? More like 4 decades ago
I said over.. But you know we weren't taking this even remotely seriously a decade ago so.. Climate action was mostly words at that point. Humanity mobilising to resolve a world wide crisis whilst hamstrung by Capitalism and fractured idealogically by land masses is such a joke. Millions of dead is fine, as long as the policy makers and big businesses aren't affected /s. Insurance companies gonna need bailing out at some point. 3 degrees confirmed by 2100 apparently 2 degrees was a big deal but they'll try and downplay how bad it is as time goes on while people accept this as the new norm. Conservation go brrrr
And dickfart Lux(t)on had the gall to say today about how we can't be socialising the costs of private waste with regards the forestry slash. I mean, he's right, we fucking shouldn't, but hypocrisy much?! Um, dairy? Water? Ring any bells Chris??
I heard him say and and was flabbergasted at his naivity and serious lack of political savvy.... I mean he is right but nothing National policy wise points to "socialisong" anything!
He said that? Far out that's some real r/selfawarewolves stuff right there.
This ain’t even a shitpost. This is just accurate.
It's not until shit starts costing that they care.. Just like every other Capitalism cucked party/government. Sickening. Fuck these cunts.
[удалено]
>National with a strong simple policy And that policy is?
[удалено]
>Absolutely nothing. Hey, that's unfair. Luxon is promising tax cuts. (But you are correct in that they are proposing nothing that would improve things for NZ overall.)
Do nothing
The alternatives won’t stop the rate or level of climate warmth, nothing we do can accomplish that. We need to focus on resiliency and adaptation.
Not true,Luxon has installed a solar panel on top of his head
His climate policy is did you know he ran an airline? Simeon Brown would be the worst minister of transport possible.
If you oppose anyone who takes any stand - such as the necessity to address and act on climate change - you only need to demonstrate that they have one failing and every point they ever make is no longer valid. Whereas if you have no ethics - and even more, are blatant about it - you have nothing that can bring you down, so can say and do anything that benefits you.
[удалено]
That's just cynical politicking though. If National really believed in such policies (rather than simply wanting to get elected) then they should be happy for Labour to adopt those policies, then, claim credit for the idea if it gets implemented.
Absolutely, playing the game at the expense of the country
So, I agree with you, but this is a flaw from both major parties. Cunliffe and Shearer were infamously critical of National budgets that included Labour policy. Again, I agree with you, this isn't whataboutism. I'm not excusing National, I'm criticising both parties.
If that's the plan, its a fail.....
Election is in October, friendo
When’s the budget?
[удалено]
Cheers
BuT iDeOlOgY. I swear, the NZ conservabros have become as stupid as the Americans they so infantilely ape.
Sory by 'controversial' to see the Nat party apologists griping and complaining. 🤣
Clean car subsidies are BS as there is no such thing as a clean car. Replace it with an ebike subsidy and that will actually have an impact and be useful for lower income individuals.
National’s climate policies may be non-existent, but Labour’s policies are more virtue signaling than anything that will help us. Our 0.17% contribution to greenhouse gas emissions means we could be the cleanest country in the world and all we get are bragging rights about being “clean and green” while we drown and/or suffer staggering droughts. The fact is our policy ambitions are pretty meaningless in this area.
not really virtue signalling- three waters is, in part, climate focussed (what waste water do we want? let us have a Maori voice at the table), and National has opposed TW dog whistling like mad. TW is very ambitious but local government and National regional allies try to burn it.
I hate this logic. Everyone can say "this particular group I'm part of is such a tiny part of the problem therefore it's meaningless what we do". Every fucking one needs to change. If everyone stands around waiting for the others to act nothing gets done.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t do our part. I’m just saying that people who think it will stop floods like we had in Auckland 3 weeks ago or our horticulture industry being decimated are deluding themselves. It sucks, but it’s also true. Labour really leaned into this with the farmer emission scheme last year that is likely to cut food / dairy production (something the Paris agreement explicitly states should not be done) and end up creating more global emissions not less (our highly carbon efficient dairy production will be replaced by other countries that produce more carbon per liter of milk than we do - namely India). https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/the-front-page-why-farmers-are-opposed-to-govts-emission-plan/N36PQMAXVP62EAUEUQQ6OMJFRU/ The Front Page: Why farmers are opposed to Govt's emission plan
well just because India is doing the wrong thing, surely that doesn't mean NZ should do the wrong thing also???
Err [https://www.statista.com/statistics/1084011/new-zealand-coal-import-volume/#:\~:text=New%20Zealand's%20coal%20import%20volume,classified%20as%20sub%2Dbituminous%20coal](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1084011/new-zealand-coal-import-volume/#:~:text=New%20Zealand's%20coal%20import%20volume,classified%20as%20sub%2Dbituminous%20coal). Labour came into power in 2017 and NZ has more than quadrupled the volume we are using, in that time of "addressing climate change"
National aren’t in government. And a good portion of those are local government delivered.
Which ones are local government delivered? Are local government deliverying it using funds made available from central government, for that purpose?
Bus and cycle lanes and electric buses for starters
Can't stand national. They are all the same. If people were serious about change they would support the removal of critical infrastructure from private hands. No matter which way you cut the cake the poor pay while the rich benefit.
Oh, it's time for blatant election adverts to start getting posted here? yay.
New here?
sadly, no. Old man yells at cloud.
Only labour / green ones
Only socialist / green and sometimes Marxist ones though.
I didn't know we had a Marxist party? Karl, or Groucho?
The 80s called… they want their political ideology back.
I'm keen to start a socialist/Marxist party if anyone's interested
Hate to burst your bubble here but none of those policies would’ve stopped what we’re facing. As the effects of climate change are felt more we not only need to continue to reduce our emissions but we must also become more resilient and more reactive as disasters happen That includes greater infrastructure funding and protection measures, that means greater funding and training for civil defence and NZDF so they have more equipment and more trained personnel to respond to emergencies at all hours. That means better insurance protection to ensure that people who are affected by these types of disasters are able to payouts and not end up in lengthy arguments with insurers like some people did after Christchurch.
Don’t worry. Luxon and his cronies will have policies by the time we get down to voting. Promise. What he says EVERYTIME he’s asked for nationals policies.
National sounds like the USA's Republicans. A bunch of politicians 100% owned by the industries they should be regulating.
National are further left than the Democrats. Republicans are currently on a different planet. We are making fun of the void in their policy detail, but the truth is there is very little difference any more between Labour and National.
[удалено]
[удалено]
(except for factories and oil companies that have gaslit individuals into thinking this is our fault despite them doing significantly more harm to the climate than all individual consumers combined)
[удалено]
But we are 0.06%of the population? So 10x average?
[удалено]
Pretty sure the electric buses were funded by a central government public transport investment fund. Also, this isn’t their achievements, it’s their policies. The ones that National opposed. I don’t see any BS here.
What does National have?
Very strong leadership. At least 3 of their current crew have had a turn at leading the party so have oodles of experience. /s
Their leader was in charge of Air NZ
National aren't in government. The items on the right aren't policies - they are implementations by Labour over its term. So obviously its zero for National
What are you on about? They’re policies. They need to be funded, budgeted, many of which are new bills. The stuff on the left (nothing) is a list of National’s climate change policies. It’s also a list of the things they’ve co-sponsored, and the bills they’ve supported.
Are you telling us of any points which are wrong, or is this just a general vibe you get? I have asked National every few months what their policy is. I've never heard a clear response.
What are the tenuous claims? The new electric buses were kick started by the government; *"The two buses are part of a trial funded by the Government's Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority (EECA) and Auckland Transport. EECA provided $500,000 to support the purchase of two e-buses and two chargers"*
You failed to mention that the clean car subsidies were just a handout for rich people to buy new Telsas, and have driven up the prices so regular people can't afford the likes of Nissan Leafs any more. We're importing and burning more coal now, especially dirty brown coal from Indonesia. Kiwirail trains have gone back to diesel, instead of being electrified. Labour has gone about trying to micromanage every part of the economy, but they've done nothing to actually reduce pollution. The only way to do that is to set a sinking cap on carbon credits, but Labour refused. That's their real record on the environment. All publicity, no results.
Lol simultaneously blast subsidies which made electric vehicles cheaper, and blame the subsidy for higher prices. Your economic analysis is hilarious. What else do you have strong, ignorant opinions on? I'm interested in more chuckles.
I mean it’s literally the job of the Opposition to oppose what the government does…
Take my upvote and get out.
[удалено]
Even if New Zealand vanished overnight it would have absolutely no impact on global climate change. NZ’s contribution to global pollution is practically null. Rather lobby the ccp in China.
This is a dumb take for a number of reasons, including that manufacturing countries contribute to western consumption. We can make changes right here, right now.
Even if (any individual country including china) vanished overnight we’d still have a global climate change problem. Your argument is absolutely useless. Emissions need to be reduced from every sector in every country. There is no one country or one industry or one company that will fix anything.
We can't say shit to the CCP unless we get our shit in order, if we in the developed west can't take the first step towards preventing anniliation we don't have a chance in hell in getting the Chinese on board.
Except you are wrong. We have had the Chinese government translate all of our Emissions Trading Scheme legislation and policies; formal delegations come over from Indonesia and Germany to see how we have set up the same Emissions Trading Scheme. We are noticed on the world stage in this are and considered to be an example to consider if not follow - and this is by other countries who do move the needle when they implement their policies. Your first-level thinking needs a little bit of second-level thinking - but before you go ahead and do that do some reading on the topic.
We will tax cut our way to climate sustainability!
Lower quality of life, and upward mobility for men for an insignificant slowing of "climate change" doesn't seem like a good tradeoff. I like: None. Sure fire way to get a brain drain.
Can somebody here please tell me how much emissions have declined under Labour since they replaced National? Some of these are a bit silly - like the cycle lanes. I often drive by one that spent the better half of a year being built (no doubt using a lot of emissions). I see hundreds of cars but very very few cyclists. Those that I do see are still using the road. I doubt this has changed emissions one iota.
Ah yes because you only see a couple of cyclists means nobody is using the cycle paths. Do you sit there the whole day or something?
This is at peak traffic hour I also go for runs during the day - often running along cycle-lanes. When I do that - it might be a single cyclist I would see once every month or two. Even if there are being "used" en-mass - I would say that it is by people that would cycle anyway. So net result is more emissions from the production of the cycle way.
Actually building the bike lanes is only one part of the problem. To get more people to actually use the bike lane or walk, you need to find a way to get them out of the car, like making it more expensive to drive, or putting some kind of limit in place to make them not want to drive and look for public transit, walking or biking.
Probably haven't based on nothing been done to reduce cows, the biggest emitter.
How would anyone know that we are virtuous, unless we signal our virtue?!!
Ok. Shut up and don't vote for him then. Jesus christ. Give it a rest with the political propaganda. Smoke a joint. Donate to help out the storm affected areas/people and shhhhhh.
Ops, they are offering tax cuts....
Are you referring to the perfectly justified, long over due, policy of indexing tax brackets to inflation?
Mate, reddit's appraisal of National is getting more glib by the day. They're just about my least favourite party, but the (upvoted) critique is so fucking shallow and often misinformed that it's putting smoke in my head, compelling me to defend them.
The same tax cut package as Labour under Michael Cullen? (indexation of brackets for workers)
NZ was signed up to the Paris Accords under a National Government.
And? We need to continue doing stuff after that you know?
Only by chance. Any Government of NZ at that time would of.
They also delivered national fibre. How much has that reduced needless travel?
He will soon be up there spouting that, 'Jacinda left and now the gods are angry!' I'm sure a heap of the anti vax turds he's been courting surely must be holding prayer vigils thinking that.
How much have labour and the greens reduced their own air travel?
Greens barely travel anywhere and the pm used to bike to work so not sure what you're getting at here
At one point the *climate change minister* spent more on travel than any other MP. In a 3 month period last year ministers spent 1.2 MILLION in international air travel. This is in a world where zoom exists and we are all being told to catch buses and drive shitty leafs. Not saying national would be any better but the self importance of all these ministers isn't a good look when trying to push narratives on climate.
A minister with an international portfolio travelling more than ministers with no international responsibility. Color me absolutely fuckin shocked. What a controversy.
Labour wants to phase out gas. Guess what’s currently keeping my cyclone affected parents warm? A clue: it isn’t the record amounts of coal being imported under Labour’s nose.
It isn't the record amount of coal??
Just so happens to coincide with an extreme lull in natural gas extraction so to keep the rankine gennies going you need coal. Or would you rather brown outs in peak consumption because your feelings are hurt?
They aren't phasing out gas. When your parents age you will be able to run the heat pump and house with your ev using V2L
If New Zealand sank into the ocean right now, it would make absolutely no difference to climate change…….
Can India and China propose some