Climate Change Measures
February 25th, 2007 at 3:38 pm by David FarrarThe HoS looks at Contact Energy and the role it may play in climate change. First we are reminded:
The reality is that since Labour took office in 1999 New Zealand’s emissions have grown at twice the rate of the United States, four times the rate of Japan and are even larger than Australia.
Now Contact Energy has announced a a bold $2 billion five-year programme to build new renewable energy projects — geothermal and wind. Worth remembering this is the privately owned generator. The other two major ones are publicly owned.
But what is the problem with their plans? The RMA.
Contact believes geothermal is the best replacement for carbon producing gas and coal stations because it is more reliable than wind. But it has been frustrated by the six-year process it has taken to get resource consent to upgrade the Wairakei station, still months away.
No resource consent should ever have to take more than a year, two at the most. But we have roads which take longer to consent than build. Marinas which take 13 years. We need a resource consent process which allows objections to be heard and considered, but doesn’t involve years and years of delays.
While on the topic of climate change, the HoS also reports on how the Government is alienating the entire forestry sector, who also might be key to helping with climate change.
They just don’t get it, that if you keep all the credits for yourself, yet try and impose huge debit costs on industry, industry will rebel. They are looking to charge $13,000 per hectare if you change your land from forests to farms, yet won’t let you keep the credits from keeping it forestry.
No tag for this post.
February 25th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
They are socialists….hence they are morons.
Why any surprise…?
Vote:February 25th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
why are we even bothering with expensive wind power when we still have thousands of years worth of cheap coal waiting to be burned?
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 8:46 am
The reality is that since Labour took office in 1999 New Zealand’s emissions have grown at twice the rate of the United States, four times the rate of Japan and are even larger than Australia.
That’s, well, really hard to believe. A quick google search reveals that Australias per capita emission is much larger than ours so it’s hard to see how their total could be smaller. Or maybe the article is just poorly written and our growth rate is merely higher.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 8:48 am
The global warming hysteria is a hoax! Don’t buy into it. maybe it will get a bit warmer – that’s great. That will reduce health costs, heating costs, lengthen growing seasons, etc. But it may also be starting to get a bit cooler, which is definitely not great.
Vote:The only real “fact” about climate change is that nobody really knows what the climate is doing.
By all means the government and industry should do things that will reduce real pollution (not CO2 which is a vital trace gas in the atmosphere), or reduce energy costs. But spending wads of cash to mitigate a complete uncertainty is not good public policy.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:22 am
“The global warming hysteria is a hoax! Don’t buy into it. maybe it will get a bit warmer”
And people wonder why no-one takes the “sceptics” seriously
There is no such thing happening, except it is and it would be good…
Comedy gold!
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Of course our emissions are not larger than Australia’s.
However, our growth in CO2 has been at a faster rate than most other countries because for so long our electricity was virtually all generated by hydro and geothermal power.
Other countries used to generate almost all their power from coal.
So our recent growth has been fueled mainly by gas and coal and oil.
On the other hand those other countries have been converting their coal generation to gas and nuclear.
But we remain a low emitter per head and of course our net emissions are so low because of our massive agriculture and forestry and all those roots absorb a heap of carbon. And remember its roots not shoots which absorb most of the caron and those pastures have plenty of roots.
Vote:But for some reason we are determined to paint ourselves as environmental “sinners” – and the EU is only too willing to believe in our own self flagellation and will be only too happy to penalise with food mile tariffs and so on. Your really do reap as you sow.
February 26th, 2007 at 10:48 am
Thank you Owen for bringing some common sense to the hysteria that is ‘climate change’ ‘global warmimg’ or what ever the new fashion word is.
The ‘believers’ remind me of those thick ditzy lot that appear in the Auckland SST section all rushing about latching onto the latest trend or fashion.Then getting tired of ot and moving on to the next one.
Again IMHO this is no more than a attempt to relief the hip pockets of hard working citizens to fund some more fruit cake policies.
And an attempt to make citizens feel guilty if they speak up against the ruse.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 10:59 am
Just for you gd
http://www.xoverboard.com/cartoons/2007/070212_immortal.png
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Lets try again
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/131/402533616_031918b736.jpg?v=0
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 11:03 am
Lets try again
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/131/402533616_031918b736.jpg?v=0
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 11:19 am
dear sonic I couldnt open the first but I did appreciate the second. I guess you and I are just going to have to keep on living for a very long time to find out which one of us are wrong and which one of us is ‘cough’ excuse the pun right.
As long as we both keep our humour levels up I will enjoy the experience of being proved ‘cough’ right.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Indeed gd, my intention is to live forever or die in the attempt.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
sonic This means you and I are going to going at it hammer and tongs for a very long time.
Back on track I cant figure the gumints attitude to the foresters. Am I missing something but shouldnt they be encouraging planting on land that cant be used for farming animals.Surely the more more forests we have in the future the better. I understand that England now has more trees than it did in the Middle Ages.
And how do we stop the animals from farting and belching.Or do we kill them all?
Any answers?
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
David, the deforestation tax will only apply to forests planted before 1990, that’s the baseline year for measuring carbon emissions under Kyoto. Let me say this plainly and repeatedly, there are no carbon credits for these forests, their existance is part of the null point for our emissions… they are not carbon sinks for the purposes of Kyoto. However, their destruction would increase New Zealand’s emissions comparable to the baseline due to the release of CO2 in the clearing of the forest and from the land’s new use (probably dairy). There is a cost to this country under Kyoto in removing those forests but no benefit (apart from the avoided cost) in retaining them. Haven’t you read the explanatory info on the charge that explains this? Have you only read newspaper articles? Surely, as a classical liberal, you agree that if a one in pursuit of his/her interersts places costs on others (in this case the owner of a pre-1990 forest increasing NZ’s Kyoto liablity by cutting down that forest) they should compensate for the damage caused. That is all the deforestation charge does. Can you understand that?
Vote:Also, have you ever considered that, when it is necessary to take the simplistic, biased spin on issues that you so often do in order to make your position appear credible, it may mean your position is sub-optimal? I know I would have deep trouble with my political views if I had to avoid deeper analysis of an issue for them to retain crediblity. I’m just asking is all.
February 26th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Sonic:
“And people wonder why no-one takes the “sceptics” seriously
There is no such thing happening, except it is and it would be good…
Comedy gold!”
Very clever, except you missed my point entirely. The “hysteria” of disaster and gloom is the hoax. There may be global warming, or there may be global cooling. Who knows. Or maybe there’s no real changes (except on relatively short time scales). There’s certainly no proof, just a lot of theories which sooner later will be disproved. Only by then a lot of maoney will have been spent chasing a myth.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Until we know just what temperature is the planets ideal all this GW bollix is just that….man will adjust and prosper regardless so lets not loose any more sleep over this crap..
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 1:13 pm
” There may be global warming, or there may be global cooling. Who knows”
Well no-one “knows” however the vast majority of climate scientists have an opinion. An opinion backed by facts, as opposed to childish conspiracy theories.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Sam – the pre 1990 forests tend to be owned by post 1990 forests owners also. And when they see only the stick, and no carrot, no surprise they react. And the only result of the proposed policy will be to see deforestation increase before it is implemented. A huge own goal. The Govt needs to work with owners, not against them.
And the forest owners did not sign Kyoto. The Govt did on their behalf, and is sending them the bill.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
“Well no-one “knows” however the vast majority of climate scientists have an opinion.”
Precisely! Obviously, where we differ is that you are prepared to spend vast resources on the weight of this “opinion”. I am not.
And actually I don’t think that global warming hysteria is a “conspiracy” – just pseudo-science that happens to have gained popularity becuse it coincides with various populist agendas (anti-industrial, anti-coal, anti-oil, anti-development …).
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Ever heard of the precautionary principle RT?
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 2:06 pm
“Ever heard of the precautionary principle”
Yes, and it’s wise to spend a small premium to mitigate the possibility of a far bigger financial loss. But to insure against unproven risks based on “opinion” is not wise.
As I said originally:
“By all means the government and industry should do things that will reduce real pollution (not CO2 which is a vital trace gas in the atmosphere), or reduce energy costs. But spending wads of cash to mitigate a complete uncertainty is not good public policy.”
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
“Yes, and it’s wise to spend a small premium to mitigate the possibility of a far bigger financial loss”
Which is exactly what we are arguing for.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
Umm David, there is a carrot to match the stick, its caled the Permanent Forest Sinks Initiative. You plant a new permanent forest, you get the resulting carbon credits becuase you’ve reduced the amount of carbon credits NZ will have to buy to make up its Kyoto deficit – you convert a pre-1990 forest that was part of nz’s initial carbon sinks into emissions producing dairy farms, you get pinged becuase you’ve increased the carbon credits NZ will have to buy – ou convert a post-1990 forest into farms, you niether get rewarded for the forest nor pinged for cutting it down becuase you’ve had no net effect on nz’s emissions. So, you see, the costs and benefits of forest owners’ actions arising from Kyoto are internalised, and that’s what we want, right? Of course, the forest owners would like to internalise the benefits of carbon credits from new forests and socialise the cost in carbon credits of cutting down pre-1990 forests but in a capitalist society we don’t want jokers getting a free ride at the expense of the rest of us – that’s ineffienct and its welfarism.
Vote:As for “the forest owners did not sign Kyoto, the Govt did” – come on, you’re better than that.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Sonic, isnt our “bill” projected to be around $600 mio. If you think thats is small well then… oh yes, you are just another socialist used to spending money other people earned.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 2:29 pm
What do you think the cost of a 20 meter sea rise would be Captain C?
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Prove to me the sea will rise 20 meters. 20 meters being the size of a six story building.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Do you avoide buying car insurance as no-one can “prove” your car will crash?
Or do you listen to the experts
In facr if both the artic and Antartic ice sheets melted ther rise would be 70m
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
gd. You are right about reforestation of marginal/unproductive land.
Vote:I’m not sure of a lot of the details, but some if not all of the regions in NZ are working with farmers/land owners to reforest those lands that are causing land erosion, etc.
Agenda had an interview on sometime last year discussing the subject i think around the King Country region in this case.
February 26th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Prove it sonic. I dont buy insurance to protect me from snake bite and we know snakes bite.So forget your asinine comparisons.
The “experts” seem very much divided, or do you mean “your” experts?
Your “if” scenarios are stupid.
Vote:Now, prove to us all that the seas around New Zealand will rise more than the height of a six storey building. Just take a moment and imagine how high that is.
Go on, for once in your miserable little trolling life, answer a question.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
I buy car insurance because there is evidence of car accidents every day. There is no evidence of sea level rises, global temperature rises, increased storm severity, etc, etc – only theory, speculation, computer models and “opinion”.
Vote:When there are verifiable data of these events then we should act.
Until then there are far better things to spend our time and money on (AIDS, drinkable water supplies, malaria, etc) that will improve the lives of millions now.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
but the sky is falling, the sky is falling. What do we do, what do we do?
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
At the end of this February I have decided that I have lived through the warmest winter I have every known.
Vote:“Deforestation” is a new word for farmers harvesting their mature woodlots.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
“is no evidence of sea level rises, global temperature rises, increased storm severity, etc, etc”
Except for all the evidence that is!
Look guys go bury your head in the sand and ignore reality, no problem.
You get on with your half-assed conspiracy theories and personal abuse, and leave the grown ups to worry about the real problems.
xxx
S
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
sonic, where is the evidence. Come on, you tell us the sea is going to rise by six stories.
Vote:How?
Prove it.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
If the arctic ice cap melts that is what would happen Captain C.
The Artic is is melting, no doubt about it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6171053.stm
I know there is no point though, you guys are so blinkered by your ideology that any facts you are given are just ignored in favour of boring rhetoric and streams of personal insults.
Lucky there are enough grown-ups around to take us forward in dealing with this is a sensible way.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
sonic,
Vote:what personal abuse? You are the one who had the go at Whale Oil, not us.
And now you infer we are half assed and children.
So how about stop abusing us and answer the question.
Prove it how the sea is going to rise the height of a six storey building in NZ
February 26th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
You are actually proving how hysterical you are, post and then repost 6 minjutes later screaming for proof!
Calm down and look at the facts.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Im amused at the arbitary 1990 Why not 1989 or 1991. Surely the objective is to get the emmssions or whatever down asap. So under the current scheme the least polluters at 1990 have the biggest hurdle and worst polluters have the least hurdle and the biggest polluters say go take a running jump at yourself and NZ who will make the least global difference even if it eliminates all emmissions is going to put its taxpayers thru sheer hell and for what? Seems like a episode form Fawlty Towers were Basil hit himself with a tree branch.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
GD, Kyoto is far, far from perfect. That does not mean we should not do anything at all now does it?
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
What facts? We are waiting.
Vote:Dont call me hysterical either. You are out of line on that one given the way you haunt this site.
There is no point in doing something wrong just because “we should do something”. Kyoto hurts NZ, it doesnt help it all, or dont you care about your fellow citizens.
February 26th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Captian Crab, you asked where I got the figure from, I told you, I provided all the facts and figures via that link above.
So what exactly are you waiting for, me to wrap them up in a pretty pink ribbon and post it to you?
Go read the links.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Sonic, I have read the link. I cant say I am impressed when SCIENTISTs use the phrases;
Vote:” may be caused”, “may now be starting”, “new computer modelling”, “could be being weakened” and my favourite, “my gut feeling”.
So your evidence is someone on a link with a gut feeling.hahahahahaha
Man, if one of my staff came to me and told me that we should commit ourselves to a 600 mio cost on his gut feeling I would think they have gone mad.
Sorry, standard of proof not high enough-try again. Got any actual measurements of sea height and how much has that temperature risen again?
February 26th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Sonic doesnt seem to know the artic melts “every year” and then freezes back over again. The Ice is floating as well so it makes no difference.
Vote:The Antarctic is of course getting colder, except for the 5% near South America , which is where also the British Anarctic Survey is located so they just ignore the rest of the place where ice sheets arent sliding into the sea. ( hint, the ice shelves are retreating since the last ice age)
February 26th, 2007 at 4:10 pm
I feel sorry for your staff if they have to put up with that inability to comprehend actual facts.
The flash pop up on the page shows the actual shrinking of sea ice in the Arctic. You are wittering on about anything other than that.
Go look at the actual tempratures for the last 10 years.
I know there is no point, you will avoid the facts as they contradict your fixed, unchangeable ideology. However as I said do not worry, the grown ups are here.
We will leave you to your
“hahahahahaha”
Which honestly makes you look so unhysterical and just so, so classy.
xxx
S
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
“The Antarctic is of course getting colder”
“the ice shelves are retreating since the last ice age”
Not see the contradiction there? not even a little bit?
More facts for you
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 4:18 pm
Sonic, I work in a world which relies on actual facts.
Vote:No comment about the comments but you refer me to a graph(?). Whizzo, that really convinces me. You have obviously forgotten the standard you require of others here;
“has anyone got any evidence (sorry to keep doing this to you Mr F)”
sonic Feb 21 3.40 pm.
The temperatures for the last 10 years have barely moved and can/could be explained by solar activity.
Face it, your idealogy has blinded you.You do not even question what you espouse but repeat it blindly.
So come on, explain a six storey rise in our sea levels.
You just cant can you, you just dont know enough about it.
February 26th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Captain, as I’ve said you are not blind, you just choose not to see. The arctic ice is retreating, I show you exactly by how much and you say “oh it is only a graph”
Pathetic
The vast majority of scientists in the field, the united nations, the physical evidence vs you and your ill-informed nitpicking.
Sorry, no contest I’m afraid, no contest at all.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 4:53 pm
I repeat If the worst offenders are saying Go play with yourself and just carry on and little NZ puts its people thru economic pain and suffering and the improvement in NZs emissions doesnt save the world then I have to ask the obvious question WTF???????????????
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Hilarious,carbon credits are not worth the paper their trading value as they entered junkbond status of .85e.
Looks like the emission value predictions are as accurate as James Hansen and his “crystal ball”.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Hilarious,carbon credits are not worth the paper their trading value as they entered junkbond status of .85e.
Looks like the emission value predictions are as accurate as James Hansen and his “crystal ball”.
Vote:February 26th, 2007 at 9:25 pm
Sonic said -
“What do you think the cost of a 20 meter sea rise would be Captain C?”
I to am interested in the evidence of a 20m sea rise.
Sonic I’m sure you were just busy at work this afternoon and couldn’t find time to post the links, right?. If you get a chance today could you please post the (I’m sure) very factual evidence to a 20m sea rise in NZ. I’m just selling some coastal property at the moment,but only some, maybe I should flog it all of now…..or build marinas….or mussell farms.
Sonic also said –
“Go look at the actual tempratures for the last 10 years.”
Could you also Sonic tell me what % 10 years is of the time since the last major Glacial period
( around 20,000BP)and why we should use that particular 10 years.
TIA
xxx
CL
Vote:February 27th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Sonic you really are a bloody twit if you blindly believe all that Al Gore crap.
I suggest you read http://www.climatescience.org.nz/
You seem to be of the opinion that the vast majority of scientists agree with anthropogenic global warming. This is simply not true. It is a politically-perpetuated myth.
Vote:February 28th, 2007 at 11:38 am
sonic,
Vote:you really belive everything your left wing masters say dont you.
I think a Graph drawn up by a scientist who says “its my gut feeling” has little credibilty and should be questioned.
There is no concensus on AGW.
What puzzles me is you seem to want to frame this debate to being,’you are wrong and we are right”
If you approached it as “man pollutes and we should do something”, you may find more support and real concensus.
Forget taxing NZers though as it will make NO diffence to carbon globally.
ps, Hedgehog sums you up nicely.
20 meters indeed. Building your Ark yet?
June 12th, 2007 at 9:30 am
rxqmjes yhzr fjrimq ceakfn iftczgaqj uvloxwfd nxoiql
Vote: