วีดีโอ

☺️ Promo_SM

Happy to be able to catch up on this korero when I was unable to make it in person. Thanks for sharing this important mahi.

Scam. The carbon religion is not based on science

Thank you so much for great presentation to make me understand NZ ETS in forest sector!

The automatically generated CC can help make up for the sound quality

Unfortunately the voice recording is barely understandable

Hola Siniora please could you assist me withte look up tables . I have a forest 100Ha post 1989, 1st rotation , 10 years old is the formula 100Hax 219 (NZU's look up )x 76.50 price ?

Fantastic presentation from the latest Nobel Laureate! Well deserved!

This is the sort of discussion we need to hear more of to get the change the world needs now! Some great ideas and examples shared

The CCC is setting targets. People angst about their emissions foot print. Suzie says that if we can clearly explain what the important emissions targets are then that would give clear signals to people about what is needed. Can democratic processes be used to decide what action to take, or to take action? I really want to strongly invite the panel to think about this: the emissions are coming from well-functioning, convenient and effective engineered systems. Democracy and desire can't redesign a power grid, a refrigerator, a supermarket, a building, an airline system. Do you understand that the transportation engineer's answer to carbon emissions reduction is the same as it has always been? MORE roads, so there is less congestion which is better for emissions. The mechanical engineer's answer to emissions reduction is the same as it has always been - MORE cars, but this time powered with batteries or self driving. The chemical engineers answer to reduced emissions is the same as it has always been - MORE chemical plants an containers and transport ships but now to make hydrogen which will use 4 times as much energy. And the electrical engineers answer is MORE generation everywhere and more grid but this time it will be smart and have batteries in it. Or are all of those the political engineering answers? Imagine that it is possible that the 1.4% of the workforce who are tasked with making things work (the engineers) decided to prevent what is preventable and to design and execute projects that transition the systems they know to very low energy? where would that lead? www.transitionengineering.org