Clownish "Climate Targets"

[Willy Nilly]

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/523578/air-new-zealand-pulls-the-plug-on-2030-climate-targets

Climate Targets are an absolute joke, as soon as it comes time to pay
the piper, it's "Never Mind!". Air New Zealand drops its 2030 climate
target because it's golly gosh-darn too expensive. We'll just go with
the affordable fuel rather than commit har-kari, thanks.

BUT... and here comes the higher comedy at the end...
"Air New Zealand chair Dame Therese Walsh said the airline remained
committed to reaching its 2050 net zero carbon emissions target."

HA HA HA, until it's 2044 and then they'll abandon that -- if not
earlier, of course. It's all a pathetic laugh riot, all this
virtue-signalling crap which will never reach the bottom line and
should not, either. Can some heads roll, please? Can we have some
actual businessmen at the heads of all these corporations?

[Lawrence D'Oliveiro]

We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn’t save itself
because it wasn’t cost-effective.

-- Kurt Vonnegut

[BR]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 03:01:01 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro

We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn’t save itself
because it wasn’t cost-effective.
-- Kurt Vonnegut

Save itself from what?

Bill.

[Crash]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 03:01:01 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D'Oliveiro

We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn’t save itself
because it wasn’t cost-effective.
-- Kurt Vonnegut

What society was that?

[Tony]

We’ll go down in history as the first society that wouldn’t save itself
because it wasn’t cost-effective.
-- Kurt Vonnegut

When did he say that and in what context?

[Gordon]

Post by Willy Nilly
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/523578/air-new-zealand-pulls-the-plug-on-2030-climate-targets
Climate Targets are an absolute joke, as soon as it comes time to pay
the piper, it's "Never Mind!". Air New Zealand drops its 2030 climate
target because it's golly gosh-darn too expensive. We'll just go with
the affordable fuel rather than commit har-kari, thanks.
BUT... and here comes the higher comedy at the end...
"Air New Zealand chair Dame Therese Walsh said the airline remained
committed to reaching its 2050 net zero carbon emissions target."
HA HA HA, until it's 2044 and then they'll abandon that -- if not
earlier, of course. It's all a pathetic laugh riot, all this
virtue-signalling crap which will never reach the bottom line and
should not, either. Can some heads roll, please? Can we have some
actual businessmen at the heads of all these corporations?

EV's are also joining in.

The revolution has started and the Market Forces are slamming the Net Zero
narrative backed up by pure reality of cost.

The Green net zero Governments can regulate as they wish but what if the
people did not buy EV's?

Someone needs to start a list, if they have not already done so, it will be
a long one.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/motoring/350359217/toyotas-baby-roader-set-production-no-longer-electric

[BR]

Post by Gordon
The Green net zero Governments can regulate as they wish but what if the
people did not buy EV's?

There is always the use of force. A politician's toolbox contains only
a hammer.

Bill.

[Rich80105]

Post by BR

Post by Gordon
The Green net zero Governments can regulate as they wish but what if the
people did not buy EV's?

There is always the use of force. A politician's toolbox contains only
a hammer.
Bill.

I don't think many saw the few thousand off the purchase price of an
EV as a hammer - Chris Luxon certainly saw it as an incentive rather
than a hammer, but that is so last year, Right?

[Tony]

Post by Rich80105

Post by BR

Post by Gordon
The Green net zero Governments can regulate as they wish but what if the
people did not buy EV's?

There is always the use of force. A politician's toolbox contains only
a hammer.
Bill.

I don't think many saw the few thousand off the purchase price of an
EV as a hammer - Chris Luxon certainly saw it as an incentive rather
than a hammer, but that is so last year, Right?

Sarcasm again, wow what a child.

[Rich80105]

On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 09:17:18 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by BR

Post by Gordon
The Green net zero Governments can regulate as they wish but what if the
people did not buy EV's?

There is always the use of force. A politician's toolbox contains only
a hammer.
Bill.

I don't think many saw the few thousand off the purchase price of an
EV as a hammer - Chris Luxon certainly saw it as an incentive rather
than a hammer, but that is so last year, Right?

Sarcasm again, wow what a child.

Try addressing the subject, Tony - what will happen if the people do
not buy EVs? And what do you think Bill was referring to in relation
to a politician's toolbox containing only a hammer?

In reality, if the government did wish to encourage EV purchases, I
suspect all that would be required is to charge road user charges by
taking into account fuel taxes, wheel weights, tire configuration,
unladen weight for passenger vehicles (plus load for heavy trucks),
and emissions as measured as part of a warrant check. Current settings
unfairly penalise hybrids and EVs, and I believe undercharge buses and
other heavy vehicles. So in my view no need for a hammer - just good
economic evidence for charges instead of a kneejerk political decision
to protect commercial donors . . .

[Tony]

Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 09:17:18 -0000 (UTC), Tony

Post by Tony

Post by Rich80105

Post by BR

Post by Gordon
The Green net zero Governments can regulate as they wish but what if the
people did not buy EV's?

There is always the use of force. A politician's toolbox contains only
a hammer.
Bill.

I don't think many saw the few thousand off the purchase price of an
EV as a hammer - Chris Luxon certainly saw it as an incentive rather
than a hammer, but that is so last year, Right?

Sarcasm again, wow what a child.

Try addressing the subject, Tony - what will happen if the people do
not buy EVs? And what do you think Bill was referring to in relation
to a politician's toolbox containing only a hammer?

NO, YOU address the subjevct and stop with the abusive sarcasm.

Post by Rich80105
In reality, if the government did wish to encourage EV purchases, I
suspect all that would be required is to charge road user charges by
taking into account fuel taxes, wheel weights, tire configuration,
unladen weight for passenger vehicles (plus load for heavy trucks),
and emissions as measured as part of a warrant check. Current settings
unfairly penalise hybrids and EVs, and I believe undercharge buses and
other heavy vehicles. So in my view no need for a hammer - just good
economic evidence for charges instead of a kneejerk political decision
to protect commercial donors . . .

That is a lie.

[BR]

Post by Rich80105

Post by BR

Post by Gordon
The Green net zero Governments can regulate as they wish but what if the
people did not buy EV's?

There is always the use of force. A politician's toolbox contains only
a hammer.
Bill.

I don't think many saw the few thousand off the purchase price of an
EV as a hammer -

Do you mean subsidies? If so, a hammer was taken to the NZ taxpayers
by forcing them to contribute to someone else's vehicle expenses.

All that is a similar to the deceptive nonsense that came from Ardern
when she campaigned on "kindness" in government. There is no such
thing as a "kind" government. There is nothing kind or virtuous about
being generous with other people's money.

Post by Rich80105
Chris Luxon certainly saw it as an incentive rather
than a hammer, but that is so last year, Right?

That's your argument?

Bill.

[Rich80105]

Post by BR

Post by Rich80105

Post by BR

Post by Gordon
The Green net zero Governments can regulate as they wish but what if the
people did not buy EV's?

There is always the use of force. A politician's toolbox contains only
a hammer.
Bill.

I don't think many saw the few thousand off the purchase price of an
EV as a hammer -

Do you mean subsidies? If so, a hammer was taken to the NZ taxpayers
by forcing them to contribute to someone else's vehicle expenses.
All that is a similar to the deceptive nonsense that came from Ardern
when she campaigned on "kindness" in government. There is no such
thing as a "kind" government. There is nothing kind or virtuous about
being generous with other people's money.

Post by Rich80105
Chris Luxon certainly saw it as an incentive rather
than a hammer, but that is so last year, Right?

That's your argument?
Bill.

EVs are only a small part of actions that may assist meeting emissions
targets - the small reduction in purchase price did not cost anywhere
near the expected cost of reducing excise tax which the current
government has done for burnt tobacco products - that are not expected
to reduce the need for medical services or the number of smokers.
There has been plenty of speculation about close connections to
political donors though . . .

[Tony]

Post by Rich80105

Post by BR

Post by Rich80105

Post by BR

Post by Gordon
The Green net zero Governments can regulate as they wish but what if the
people did not buy EV's?

There is always the use of force. A politician's toolbox contains only
a hammer.
Bill.

I don't think many saw the few thousand off the purchase price of an
EV as a hammer -

Do you mean subsidies? If so, a hammer was taken to the NZ taxpayers
by forcing them to contribute to someone else's vehicle expenses.
All that is a similar to the deceptive nonsense that came from Ardern
when she campaigned on "kindness" in government. There is no such
thing as a "kind" government. There is nothing kind or virtuous about
being generous with other people's money.

Post by Rich80105
Chris Luxon certainly saw it as an incentive rather
than a hammer, but that is so last year, Right?

That's your argument?
Bill.

EVs are only a small part of actions that may assist meeting emissions
targets - the small reduction in purchase price did not cost anywhere
near the expected cost of reducing excise tax which the current
government has done for burnt tobacco products - that are not expected
to reduce the need for medical services or the number of smokers.
There has been plenty of speculation about close connections to
political donors though . . .

But zero evidence, just rhetoric.
Emissions targets are largely nonsense and driven by greed and rhetoric.