Dairy prices dip again; US data all very positive; Brainard lights fire under bond market; RBA no longer 'patient'; China's credit easing underway; UST 10yr 2.56%; gold and oil lower; NZ$1 = 69.7 USc; TWI-5 = 75.1

True enough too. But then again, the attributes of NZ vis a vis the EU, could hardly be more different.

If you had had an encounter with the Rumanian pickpockets in Dublin. Or were amongst the North of England who voted for Brexit, largely because of  immigration. You might not enthuse regarding open slather open borders, quite that much.

Nicely put, better than my attempt. 

Testimony given before Congress by Chairman Joint Chief of Staff General Milley and Secretary of Defence General Austin that EU Nations are hurriedly undertaking to build and facilitate new bases imploring that they  be manned and armed permanently by the US Military. So where have all the EU soldiers gone. The EU can’t defend itself, can’t power itself and can’t supply itself. Rather makes a mockery of your third para doesn’t it.

The denial is incredible. People are desperate to be living in fear. "Brian O’Neill, the director of the Joint Global Change Research Institute, a partnership between the U.S. Department of Energy and the University of Maryland at College Park, has a clearer view of this question than most of us. He was one of the lead architects of the five different futures—called “shared socioeconomic pathways,” or SSPs

...The path we seem to be on, at least for now, looks closer to SSP 2, which the authors call “Middle of the Road.” This is a world in which “social, economic, and technological trends do not shift markedly from historical patterns.” A world, in other words, in which we do not heroically rise to the occasion to fix things, but in which we also don’t get much worse than we already are.

So what does this SSP 2 world feel like? It depends, O’Neill told me, on who you are. One thing he wants to make very clear is that all the paths, even the hottest ones, show improvements in human well-being on average. IPCC scientists expect that average life expectancy will continue to rise, that poverty and hunger rates will continue to decline, and that average incomes will go up in every single plausible future, simply because they always have."

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2021/11/how-bad-will-climat…

My point is we are going to affected either way.  Either

1- the world collectively takes the measures required to limit the effects of climate change which will require us to change our lifestyles or 

2 - they don't and we suffer alongside everyone else the worse effects, if this is the case we will be better off having adopted the carbon zero measures anyway. 

Planet burns was a metaphor that tries to capture the magnitude of the unfolding catastrophe.  This article does a better job than I could 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/feb/02/the-devastation-of-…

SMRs have the potential to revolutionise nuclear power as a safer, more affordable (up to 40% cheaper than a traditional plant scaled to same energy output) alternative that can be built and deployed without the significant upfront costs and complexities.

Some newer designs require no electrical supplies or pumps to cool the reactor, as this is achieved by natural convection and gravity coolant feed.

NuScale Power already been approved to build and deploy a network of test reactors in Idaho, in 2029 and 2030.

I thought nuclear was the most expensive way to produce power?  That's why the only nuclear plants being built are done with huge state subsidies.



https://www.iisd.org/story/the-united-kingdom-is-to-subsidize-nuclear-p….

Putting a realistic price on carbon might change the equation a little.

It's an old debunked myth that nuclear energy is cheaper than renewables.

All caclulations that come to the conclusion are heavily flawed as they don't take into account nuclear waste disposal (which is a HUGE and costly problem, just ask Germany how many millions they spent on finding a suitable site over the last 20 odd years, with no results), use doctored cost figures (include subsidies that lower the price), retirement and safe disposal of old reactors and potentially enormous economic and societal costs from a nuclear fallout.

The biggest issue, cost of nuclear is going up not down like renewables:

Over the past decade, the WNISR estimates levelized costs - which compare the total lifetime cost of building and running a plant to lifetime output - for utility-scale solar have dropped by 88% and for wind by 69%.

For nuclear, they have increased by 23%, it said.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-energy-nuclearpower-idUSKBN1W909J

totally correct. Our energy sector is focused towards paying the government it's dividends, not providing affordable energy or being efficient or innovative. A total waste really.

You are quite right, over the last few decades we've moved backwards on so many issues towards a disposable mindset. It's a tough job to undo the 'convenience at all costs' thinking. Who wants to spend an extra 20 minutes a day sorting their recycling, hanging out clothes, fixing their things etc when that's a whole episode on Netflix?

Many of these things are still options - if I drank milk, there are glass bottle refill options near to me, I bike virtually everywhere, we've used the dryer once this year (it came with the house), we try to minimise our waste and buy many things 2nd hand. We've all got to keep working to actually value our materials and reduce consumption. 

You're also right at the end - we're only doing this for our benefit. The planet will shrug off our excesses and no doubt have an evolutionary burst after the human-induced extinction. But, perhaps survival of the species is enough of an incentive to grab the bike to head to the shops rather than the car? 

" the change is only wrecking the HUMAN environment -- not the planet"

You are right to a point, but what about all the other flora & fauna that we are destroying in the process?

Glass milk bottles require too much energy.  To produce, recycle and primarily to transport milk in them (they are too heavy).

Greta and here army of millennials would be better off looking at life 50 yrs ago

They are. Many living very much like that.

But it's pretty inconsequential if the older generations in control continue the way they are.

Perfect is the enemy of good. Better to use some fossil fuels to make a wind turbine than to just rely on burning more and more coal to generate our electricity.

Even better to reduce our usage altogether - encouraging active and public transport, and high quality insulation in all buildings (where feasible) are no-brainers. 

I accidentally got caught up biking in the post-school rush out of cashmere high yesterday. An absolute river of bikes, hundreds of kids making their way home. It was great to see the Christchurch cycling investments start to pay off, and there's lots more on the way. 

We struggle to get any significant movement from Auckland Transport on cycle ways and public transport, like they're dinosaur-burning dinosaurs who have to be dragged kicking and screaming to any concessions. In fairness, when they do come to the party, NIMBYs remain a massive problem by trying to prevent any progress toward sustainability.

Classic 'Vlad-bot'

Do you think there might just be a reason they wanted to joint NATO?

How long can Europe just sit back and let this carry on is behind me. 

 

 The costs to go carbonless for each household is a lot less than the housing premium we are paying in NZ

Good points on the cars not stopping I sold my house and moved to another part of town to ensure that they could walk to primary school and the High shcool has a bike path bike but for most now the roads are unsafe due to increasing population but not infrastructure.

It is crazy the reduction in kids bikes at school i am picking 95%  or more drop in kids biking compared to pre2000