James Shaw is the Minister of Climate Change - a role that National, if Bruce Bisset is right, is unlikely to ever create if re-elected. Photo / File
James Shaw is the Minister of Climate Change - a role that National, if Bruce Bisset is right, is unlikely to ever create if re-elected. Photo / File
The cacophony of climate change denial from the National Party – led by deputy Paula Bennett's assertion that there are "counterarguments" – shows the Right is gearing up to fight this election on an "anti-science" agenda.
Because the science is in and has been for a long time. There isno debate; the climate is changing radically, and human influence is a major driver of that.
And, as we're now witnessing in Australia, it is the worst-case Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenario predictions that are coming true.
Bennett's remarks on a radio talkback show were in relation to a new Year 7-10 Ministry of Education resource about to be rolled out nationwide, focusing on the science of climate change.
To suggest there are "two sides" – to allow denial, in short – is anti-science; what she is saying, really, is 'Because I arbitrarily believe there's room for doubt, therefore the science must be wrong.' It isn't.
As the Extinction Rebellion protest movement demands, it is time politicians of all stripes started telling the truth. And this much-needed education initiative, allowing students to learn the facts behind their changing world is a first step in line with that.
Whereas, led by Bennett and others such as Coromandel MP Scott Simpson and Act leader David Seymour, in my opinion the business-as-usual brigade are telling lies.
Because, in my view, that's what denial of climate change is – a lie.
Bruce Bisset - "the Right is gearing up to fight this election on an "anti-science" agenda".
Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, they're not alone.
There are major vested interests to whom acceptance of climate emergency translates as a perceived loss of income and profit – and they'd rather fantasise about money than admit culpability.
Witness Southland Federated Farmers president Geoffrey Young, quoted in this paper last week, who admitted agricultural emissions were high but said most were methane, "which is a short-lived gas and while stable in quantity does not contribute to global warming".
Remarkable. The only bit of that statement remotely true is the "short-lived gas" part – assuming you accept that 10-20 years is "short-lived".
But methane is nowhere near "stable in quantity"; apart from (increasing) stock sources and (increasing) forest fires, thanks to permafrost melt in the Arctic and ocean heating fomenting deep-sea release of plumes of the stuff, methane's concentration in the atmosphere is now 1866 parts per billion – two and a half times pre-industrial levels – and rising fast.
Moreover methane is one of the worst greenhouse gases, with a global warming potential 21 times that of CO2. To say it has no effect is, quite simply, false.
But of course it suits people like Young to downplay methane's effects when the argument is about how many cows there should be, and their relative impact.
And it suits the politicians whom farmers vote for – historically, mainly National candidates – to similarly deny the problem to retain their votes.
Media give space and breadth to denialists because even though they're wrong it's still seen as "news" – although some folk now view it as a hate-crime in which media are complicit.
This is how the anti-science lobby works: continually speak outrageous untruths designed to have people doubt the facts, then work slowly up to some ineffectual "middle ground" that lets the status quo continue.
Perhaps if we had centuries to work it round, a "slowly softly" approach might be okay. But we have this decade, at most; and that's it.
Meanwhile at the world's money-go-round in Davos, Donald Trump has labelled climate activists "prophets of doom".
Well, maybe we are, Donald – for damn good reason.
As Greta Thunberg replied to Trump's disparaging remarks: "Without treating it as a real crisis we cannot solve it."
And that, Ms Bennett, is the truth you are failing to address.
