-50% by 2050 Impossible- Nick Smith Utter Charlatan

Anyone who disagrees with the headline is free to post an explanation of how this target is going to be met. What each particular measure is and by how much it will reduce emissions. A cost estimate of the measure must also be included so us mere mortals can be informed as to how the Gods of Global warming that guide Nick Smith can share their ideas on how a broke country with a steadily declining economic situation is going to afford these reductions.

I say the reductions cannot be achieved and even if they could be, the cost would be unaffordable. What is more, it is my humble opinion that Smith and the rest of the government know this. The whole exercise is a charade, it will do nothing to reduce global warming, it will cost NZers already struggling under steadily declining living standards a huge increase in their weekly living expenses, and Smith should be fired for imposing this utterly looney false solution to a non existent problem upon the country.

Climate Change Minister Nick Smith today announced the Government’s long-term target of a 50% reduction in New Zealand greenhouse gases emissions from 1990 levels by 2050.

“Setting a long-term target provides long-term certainty about where domestic climate change policy is headed so we can plan and invest accordingly. The target is being gazetted today under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 and delivers upon National’s 2008 election promise,” Dr Smith said. Speaking at the New Zealand Climate Change Research Institute Forum in Wellington, Dr Smith said that feedback from a recent public consultation supported setting a long-term emissions reduction target.

“A wide variety of submissions were received – from those who expressed scepticism about climate change, to those who wanted a much stronger target,” Dr Smith said. “We believe a 50% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2050, or -50 by 50, strikes the right balance. It has New Zealand doing our fair share and is comparable with the targets set by our major trading partners.

Name these trading partners Mr. Smith. BTW, if Angela Merkel jumped off a cliff, would you do it too? As for our “fair share”, in what? A global scam that will do nothing to change the climate? Where’s China’s “fair share” Smith? What an utter farce.

12 thoughts on “-50% by 2050 Impossible- Nick Smith Utter Charlatan

  1. Setting a long-term target provides long-term certainty about where domestic climate change policy is headed so we can plan and invest accordingly

    OK then Nick, you bung-eyed little weasel, do something to fix the fiasco in Kaipara where the tidal generation proposal has been languishing in red tape, nimbyism and iwi bribery for the last 4 years.


  2. It’s all crap, an elaborate scam. “Climate change” is the last opportunity for this government to ramp up taxes in a really big way, and the anger that causes will be drowned in a sea of argument, deflecting attention from the central issue–a government devoid of ideas and spine. Like all socialists, they see the answer to most problems as more control, more tax and AGW is the perfect vehicle for both.


  3. If there is to be a target for this shit, why isn’t it the back of Nick Smith’s head?


  4. Just another bullshitting politician, fuck 2050, what a soft cock. Why not go the whole hog and set a date like 2020. Pretty safe to set a date in 40 years time, unless the retard gets very lucky he should be safe and sound in a deep hole by then. Fuck this country is depressing sometimes, doesn’t matter what we say do or vote we still end up with two faced arseholes who don’t give a flying fuck about NZ. Tax and control is where these wankers get their jollies.


  5. The real truth is of course that this country could easily sustain ten times its current population, if only government got out of the way. History thus far has always shown that any technological development always IMPROVES quality of living in the long run, and that any perceived problem is resolved long before it reaches criticality.
    Remember that there were people complaining about the mountains of horse shit they envisaged as a result of population and transport growth. The greens are no different to those early doom sayers, and they would do everybody a service by moving to an island somewhere to grow and eat their lentils in peace, so the rest can actually move on.
    Personally I’d like to have one of those Jetson flying cars before I perish…


  6. So if we’re aiming for a 50% reduction on 1990 levels by 2050 – I guess we can say goodbye to the farming and dairy industries.

    Remind me again how we’re going to generate export dollars?


  7. My favourite bit was “recent public consultation”. I’ve whined on this blog before how he ignored everyone at the pre-rob meeting.


  8. dondiego, I think ‘public consultation’ in Smith’s mind involves him talking to Greenpeace and the charlatans at NIWA. They’re members of the public aren’t they?


Comments are closed.