GV27:

 

tdgeek:

 

Or are you blaming the Coalition for encouraging climate change? Does National have an anti tourism policy? I wouldn't have an issue if tourism was banned. If a $1000 per seat levy was placed on flights, if meat was banned from being farmed as was milk (thats quite sensible).  

 

Govts dont want to upset people as votes are more important than climate change. Most people want green policies but truth be known they dont want to pay for it, classic human behaviour.

 

 

I think we're structurally boned in that we're heavily reliant on tourism, but radical steps such as population control in somewhere like NZ, where we have so few people to begin with, is going to be seen as draconian. We can't even convince people to have fewer kids for the benefit of their own well-being, let alone some loftier inspirational goal like 'saving the planet'. How would you enforce it? Mass sterilisation? Executing third-borns? 

 

"Population control" in NZ is pointless anyway.  Without immigration, like most other first world countries, we'd have negative population growth.

Even after China eased their one-child policy, their population growth continues to decline.  They probably factored the risk of falling into a demographic trap as part of the decision.  Japan has that, low immigration, negative population growth, and an ageing population.  It's not coincidence that they have a deficit >2x GDP.

It's easy to hypothesise and hard to refute that capitalism and environmentalism aren't compatible. The libertarian view that "we've used our ingenuity to save ourselves before - so can do so indefinitely into the future whatever the threat" seems just like religious optimism to me. The theistic religions seem to be gravitating toward belief that end of times are near, though to be fair, they've been using that ideology as a recruitment tool for at least centuries.