The cost of carbon mitigation
Adolf Stroombergen of Infometrics has done a study of the projected costs of carbon mitigation for NZ households. Dr Stroombergen is the chief economist at Infometrics and has done quite a bit of work in the climate change area – including for the Government’s Emissions Trading Group. In fact his work is quoted approvingly by David Parker just three months ago. This report was commissioned by the New Zealand Business Roundtable and the Petroleum Exploration and Production Association of New Zealand.
The Government has an aspirational goal of carbon neutrality by 2050. However this report doesn’t even try to measure what the cost of that would be. A very conservative target of restoring NZ’s emission levels to 1990 levels by 2025 is studied. And this is very conservative – NZ voted in Bali to reduce emission levels by 2020 to 25% – 40% below 1990 levels. Our Kyoto target is to be at 1990 levels by 2012.
The report looks at a business as usual scenario (based on growth of over 4% which is the Govt’s target], and then a scenario where a domestic price of carbon is $300/tonne. This reduces emissions by one third, but still leaves them 90% over 1990 levels. That shortfall has to be purchased on the international market at an estimated $100/tonne.
The impact on various industries is massive. Sheep farming would be 32% smaller than under business as usual. Dairy farming 28% smaller and petroleum 27% smaller.
A scenario C is also looked at, which assumes high economic growth itself leads to higher economic growth due to greater immigration and business confidence etc. You need to be an economist to follow it in detail, but the key thing for most is the figures. Under scenario C we reduce emissions by 40%, but they still exceed 1990 levels by 70% and and the cost of purchasing excess emissions on the world market is $7.2 billion.
The summary of the research is:
In summary, once the effects on aggregate investment, employment and productivity of investment uncertainty and transitional costs are taken into account, policy action to reduce New Zealand’s emissions could lead to a fall in private consumption of 14% relative to BAU. This is about $7,000 per person in current prices or $19,000 per household. It also implies a doubling of electricity prices relative to 2007/08 and increases in petrol prices of more than 50% Nevertheless, despite these adverse effects on households, New Zealand’s emission levels rise significantly rather than reduce relative to 1990 levels, calling into question the consistency of the government’s twin goals of growth and carbon neutrality.
I have been saying for some months that we need more data on the benefits and costs of climate change and mitigation strategies, so that they can be weighed up. This report provides some of that data.
The response from David Parker is very disappointing. In fact it could almost result in a prosecution under the Fair Trading Act. Parker claims:
There is no mismatch between the goal of raising New Zealanders’ standards of living and of becoming carbon neutral.
This is of course nonsense. Absolute nonsense. Of course there is a tradeoff between economic growth and carbon emissions. It is beyond dishonest for Parker to say there isn’t. The issue before us is how to make that trade off, and to what degree.
The Stroombergen report is not, of course, gospel. One can intelligently challenge the assumptions, the impact of technologies etc, and argue it will not be as bad as the $19,000 per household cost in the report. But to argue that there is absolutely no mismatch or tradeoff between economic growth and reducing carbon emissions is almost the equivalent of arguing the Earth is flat. It is an appalling response from the Climate Change Minister which just tries to con New Zealanders into thinking one can eliminate carbon emissions from our economy and not have it affect our standard of living.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:49 am
Oh dear, poor old Labour. They can’t take a trick, can they? First the equities market turned Kiwislaver into a vote loser, John Key gazumps Clrk at her every turn and now, the economic reality of ’sustainability is set to wreck any hope Clark had of using climate change as a vote winner.
February 6th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Are bananas carbon neutral?
Could we be self sufficient in bananas by the time we become a republic?
February 6th, 2008 at 8:52 am
I really am coming round to the conviction that the climate change debate is more religion than science.
It is almost nine years now since there was any measurable global warming. China is gripped by the biggest freeze in decades. The arctic ice cap is back to its normal size (but the media has not told us that).
Meanwhile, carbon credits seem to be getting enthusiastic support from the businesses that stand to make a lot of money trading them. They are like the religious penances of old.
Am I the only one wondering if we are being conned somewhere here?
February 6th, 2008 at 9:03 am
Isn’t the whole point to affect our standard of living? The Greens want us to go back to “a simpler way of life”, so they must love this report that says you must do see if you want to reduce CO2 emissions.
Now we only need to wait for the “me too” response of John Key.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:06 am
“Am I the only one wondering if we are being conned somewhere here?”
No Poneke, you are not.
G
February 6th, 2008 at 9:11 am
There seems to be a trend emerging where labour are going beyond normal “spin” and just out and out lying.
When will the MSM start to call them out on this?
February 6th, 2008 at 9:17 am
David Parker is confusing “carbon neutral” with “brain neutral”. (A common mistake in his party, as it seems to be their most “sustainable” position.)
February 6th, 2008 at 9:19 am
The use of nuclear energy to produce electricity is the ONLY way to meet the twin goals of Labour. ie Economic growth and Carbon Neutrality.
One or other of these goals may well be possible, but who will be brave enough to make the choice?? The combined attempt at both is beyond the diminishing abilities of those that choose to live in New Zealand.
Obviously some clear headed forward thinking is required by both Labour and the Greens. This is not the year for clear thought from those on the Titanic.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:22 am
“When will the MSM start to call them out on this?”
If the MSM were real journalists and not partisan progressive/ left wing propagandists, this whole global warming scenario would have been killed at birth.
Forget the MSM, its been poisoned poisoned forever as an information source by a generation of “journalists” who have betrayed that craft’s most basic principles for the sake of their comrades’ political ambitions. Nowadays, its places like Kiwiblog that you’ll find the greater degree of truth, as shown by the article we’re responding to.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Well it is a matter of timing, Parker may be right – if you look out hundreds of years and don’t regulate/tax the economy to achieve it, but I doubt he is thinking that.
Complete absence of intellectual argument by Parker, kind of like how the Greens don’t let evidence get in the way of a good bit of scaremongering.
[DPF: I agree out to 2100 for example might be different, but this is looking at just returning to 1990 levels by 2025, and his insistence it can be done without affecting economic growth is just like arguing against gravity]
February 6th, 2008 at 9:31 am
um..!..isn’t your ‘interpretation’ of parkers’ response somewhat ’simplistic’..
surely parker is referring to the (fast-growing) green/environmental economies..?
(incidently..about the only industry group in america..(save the oil companies)..
..that isn’t a ’sick puppy’..)
go figure..!..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 6th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Global warming is the excuse to tax the last remaining free thing on this planet – the air that we breath.
The Green’s have already had their time – it was called the middle ages
February 6th, 2008 at 9:36 am
tho’ yr point that..’it ain’t going to be cheap’..is a valid one..
but..as an example of ‘mis-directed-energy/ies..
you can look no further tham america..
where for every dollar spent fighting the effects of climate-change..eighty-eight dollars is spent on their military..(!)
whoar..!
eh..?
imagine ‘what could be done’ with that money/energy..?
eh..?
so any evaluation of the real ‘costs’ to us of taking these (essential) steps..
must include ‘the bleeding obvious’ methods/options of redirecting (currently ‘wasted) monies/energies..
so really..that whole report is totally devalued by not including that information/evidence..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 6th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Philu
I guess the money spent on the US military is because they use it to actually fight something whereas having the air you breathe out taxed and is then spent on something which probably doesnt exist seems a waste of monies/energy…
February 6th, 2008 at 9:51 am
phil and a damned good job it is that they do invest in their military strength. They have enough brains to know that money spent, as you put it ‘fighting climate change’ is money pissed down the drain. Climate change is inevitable, inexorable and has been happening for thousands of years. You might be better employed wondering why Al Gore and all the other hucksters of junk science are starting to lose their grip on political influence. The answer is very simple. They are peddling lies.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Parker responded: “The report does not take into account the new technologies already being developed here and elsewhere which will allow us to reduce emissions while growing the economy. These include electric cars, carbon capture and storage, new solar technology, second generation biofuels, nitrogen inhibitors and many more.”
So the only way to become carbon neutral, without affecting standards of living, is for energy efficiency measures, and new technologies, to offset all the economic growth in the next 17 years. That simply is pie-in-the-sky stuff.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Philu
you are sitting at a computer, in a democracy, allowed to write whateveer you like, because at various times in the past people have spent money on weapons and used them.
Human evolution has been a constant battle and if you want a different reality best you stick to your drugs.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:00 am
David,
I wouldn’t get too hung up on the costs this report suggests are likely. The assumptions underlying it are pretty extreme – and have clearly been tweaked to get the result Kerr and co wanted.
It’s also a bit late to get upset by Parker’s response – this has been the official govt line since the announcement of the ETS. It may be difficult to reconcile long term economic growth with meaningful sustainability and carbon neutrality, but we’re going to have to try. As Margaret Thatcher once said: there is no alternative.
[DPF: The assumptions can clearly be challenged. As I understand it though they are trying to show the conflict between two Govt goals, with Scenario A being the growth goal and Scenario B the carbon to 1990 levels goal. I certainly do hope that technology will reduce the impact of Scenario B. By 2025 (as opposed to say 2100) I am unsure how much technology will have helped - especially in the agricultural sector.
I do have real problems with a Govt line of not acknowledging the trade offs between growth and carbon. If the cost of reduced carbon emissions is 1% less economic growth, well then that may be the price one has to pay. But pretending there is some magic like solution in the near future is dishonest]
February 6th, 2008 at 10:07 am
God, the lunatics are well and truly at the wheel. Wasn’t NZ going to take millions in for our carbon credits?. It seems the socialists turds were well and truly conned and now the peasants must pay their gambling debts.
There should be some serious arse kicking going on for this little fuck up but oh no, no blame here, please move the fuck on!!
Parker is a socialist clown if he believes there will be no effect in making NZ carbon neutral. Shit this country is pushing shit up hill now but lets keep kicking the people, is it any wonder people are voting with their feet.
Is there anyone in this country, as far as political partys are concerned, that arn’t braindead when it comes to this AGW bullshit. Will they stand up and say enough of this leftist crap and this includes John Key and the National party.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:07 am
adolf..it is still..after all these years..within your powers to gobsmack..
..with your ability to fly inthe face of all the evidence that surrounds you..
’shine on..etc..!..’
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 6th, 2008 at 10:12 am
adolf..just in case you aren’t aware yet..
your time..the ‘bush era’ is ‘over’..done ‘n dusted..
you are in for a period of long ‘disappointment’.
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 6th, 2008 at 10:12 am
I don’t have a lot of confidence in any sort of economic projections going out several decades, the Stern report that argued that carbon reductions weren’t expensive, and this one that argues that they are, are based on whatever assumptions that the authors choose to make.
With this one they assume that economic growth will be 4.5-5.0%/yr with business as usual, that sounds high to me by historical standards.
They also base their projections on the assumption that forests are not net carbon sinks which isn’t true, with plantation pines the figure for carbon sequestration I’ve come across is 7.5tonnes/Ha/yr, just a few weeks ago we were talking on this blog about how Labours failure to stop the convertion of forests to farms was impacting NZ’s net emissions.
February 6th, 2008 at 10:18 am
“..I don’t have a lot of confidence in any sort of economic projections going out several decades,..”
i mean..treasury can’t even get twelve-month predictions right..!
why should we pay much attention to the politically-slanted burblings of a rightwing ‘think-tank’..?
cos’.they are basically..just ‘blowing it out their butts’..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 6th, 2008 at 10:23 am
“Parker is a socialist clown if he believes there will be no effect in making NZ carbon neutral.”
I don’t think he does believe it. Instead he is just peddling the line that a political strategy committee decided is most likely to generate votes.
Which is worse?
February 6th, 2008 at 10:29 am
Philu
Treasury is the Public Service not the private sector. Also it tends to be full of double major varsity oiks from various universities. All good on theory but never had to actually make some money. To reduce pollution we are going to need money-agreed?
Now as for the rightwing thinktank. Do you think they know about money?
February 6th, 2008 at 10:43 am
“..Now as for the rightwing thinktank. Do you think they know about money?..”
what..?..as in how to ‘use’/milk/privatise the ’system/collective-good..?
for theirs and other righties advantage..?
i’ll bet you they are as sharp as tacks on all that..!
..and any ‘public airing’ of those plans..
..wouldn’t be until nationals’ ’secret agenda’ kicked in..
eh..?
and i guess..crab..that you would rather we didn’t have ‘..double master varsity oiks’..in our public service..?
your preference..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 6th, 2008 at 11:20 am
“Save the world: Dump Kyoto”
Millions of lives could be saved if Kyoto’s trillions were spent on other projects.
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=142441
We should pull out of the Kyoto accord after 16 Feb 2008 as provided for in Article 27. (Who do we need to lobby?)
February 6th, 2008 at 11:26 am
I have seen ads for 23 year old graduates as Treasury Advisors. Is it this level of incomplete competence coupled with abandonment to folly that gives us the sustainability scenario that will see the remaining NZedders migrating to Aus.? Global warming is a scam when you follow the money and the science is as rigorous as the clamps on the proponents minds. Government is about prudent discernment and action not beggaring the country on poltical winds.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Excellent reference, Ross!
February 6th, 2008 at 11:42 am
I agree with DPF that we need facts to discuss, rather than suppositions. This particular report I don’t entirely agree with, I think some of the assumptions are incorrect – or at least are certainly incorrect if we continue to have a Labour government (like the bit about having any economic growth).
But, if people don’t like it, then write a different one. Actually research it, and work out what the impact on economic growth will be, and we can then have a fact based argument on why the assumptions between the two are different, and which is correct.
Personally, I think that there is a lot we can do without greatly changing our economy. As I have said a large number of times on here, it isn’t that hard to reallocate our taxation from income to carbon usage, it largely hits the same people anyway, but instead of discouraging the earning of money, we would discourage the emission of carbon. To the extent that the two are the same we would probably get only the same impact on the economy as we do today. To the extent that income can be earned without carbon emission, people’s taxes would reduce and their income grow. I would argue that this approach would lead to increased economic growth, rather than lowered economic growth.
Further, there seems to be an assumption that we need emit carbon to use energy. If we really believe that global warming will cause the end of the world as we know it, why the hell do we worry so much about putting in new hydro dams. According to the green orthodoxy all those trees that we are so worried about being impacted will die when global warming hits us anyway, so that can hardly be a concern. And the migrating fish or whatever else the concern is will all die when increasing water temperature increases the algal growth and strips all the oxygen from the water. In short, build the dams and our carbon emissions will drop greatly. NZ doesn’t need nuclear, we have a proven renewable energy supply that other countries would kill for.
These aren’t economy destroying measures, they are simple resetting of policy.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:59 am
DPF said:
<blockquote><em>I do have real problems with a Govt line of not acknowledging the trade offs between growth and carbon. If the cost of reduced carbon emissions is 1% less economic growth, well then that may be the price one has to pay. But pretending there is some magic like solution in the near future is dishonest.</em></blockquote>
About as dishonest as pretending that your baseline for measurement should be 17 years of continuous 4.5%+ GDP growth!
At the global level, most independent modelling suggests economic impacts to be relatively small, as Andrew W points out. Treasury modelling here suggests the same, but that doesn’t mean that in some sectors the impact won’t be large – just that overall it shouldn’t be too high. Full neutrality will require shifts in economic activity, that’s obvious, but those shifts don’t all have to be negative.
I would also suggest that it’s not helpful to make this a party political issue. If the next government is NAtional-led, they will face precisely the same challenges – and I would much prefer there to be a broad consensus about the actions required, than to have policy subject to a 3-year cycle. Business needs to plan on much longer timescales than that… and certainty is important.
Finally, on “technology to the rescue”: there’s much more out there than many realise (especially if they’re still stuck on “GW is a scam”). Some technologies (solar PV, electric vehicles) could turn out to be “disruptive”, in the sense that they transform the economy in a relatively short time. There’s a lot of smart money flowing into “clean tech”, and it will have results. How big remains to be seen.
[DPF: The Scenario A was as I understand it based on the growth level needed to achieve the Govt's economic growth targets. I agree it is not what is likely to occur. But I understand the validity of using it to compare one target (growth) with another (carbon reduction).
I agree a Key Govt will face the same challenge. I hope they are more upfront at acknowledging the benefits and costs of policies. I also agree one doesn't want policy changing every three years]
February 6th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Ive just had a quick look through the report. I share the concerns at the high rate of GDP growth selected. I have to say I don’t think 4.9% is realistic.
However, if NZ is not to fall (further) behind the OECD averages, and really did want to be in the top half of the OECD, then 4.9% growth would be a minimum requirement. It is also lower than the growth experienced by many of our Asian trading partners.
So the biggest criticism is I don’t believe the growth scenario.
Regrettably I don’t think NZ has the will or the governance to achieve it.
Turning to the other scenario features. IF you believed the government was serious about “carbon neutrality” and given that our track record in carbon emissions is so much WORSE than the Kyoto signatory averages, what price do you think would need to be struck for Carbon.
Finally, does anyone really believe that drastically increasing the price of Carbon ISNT going to have a dramatic impact on industrial output – and therefore GDP?
Praying for new technologies to save us – it seems this is now the official government policy according to David Parker, doesn’t seem all that credible to me…
February 6th, 2008 at 12:36 pm
DPF said:
Come on, David, this report isn’t a serious contribution to the debate about ETS policy settings – it’s been designed to give the BR some really scary numbers to bandy around. Kerr and co want to derail or delay the ETS because it suits their current interests, and they’ve been producing a calculated series of scare reports for the last few years.
It’s worth pointing out (again) that most modelling suggests that the cost of carbon reductions is a modest amount of foregone growth. Not an absolute reduction in growth, just a slight slowdown.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
The easiest step we could take on the way to achieve carbon dioxide neutrality (carbon is different stuff altogether) would be to:
(a) acknowledge that ruminant methane is part of the natural carbon cycle and hence cannot be changing the climate. (there are no more ruminants now than before the industrial revolution.) and atmospheric concentrations of methane are actually falling. So why should we punish ourselves, unless self flagellation is actually the policy objective.
(b) complete the soil research which suggests that turning pine forests into pastures actually increases the carbon dioxide sink of the New Zealand land mass over the long term. Freeman Dyson has estimated that increasing the depth of topsoil by about 1/10th inch over half of the US arable land would absorb ALL of the US extra carbon dioxide loading. He was the first to suggest plants were carbon sinks but insisted from day one that “it’s roots not shoots” that count. Everyone immediately forgot the fine print.
BUT NO – much better to have us worry about clothes driers and light bulbs and plastic bags and to get us our of cars and into public transport even though public transport is much less efficient in every way. And of course squeeze into down town apartments even though the households with the biggest footprints live in downtown apartments and the households with the smallest carbon dioxide footprints live in peri-urban households or in rural areas.
The lunatics are running the asylum.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Parker is speaking with forked report. I seem to remember that the UK Stern Report clearly pointed out that there was a price to be paid in reduced economic growth if carbon emissions are to be reduced. Given that in economic terms this is one of the key pieces of research, especially for the proponents of GW, then why does Parker ignore it.
February 6th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Hi Owen,
a) Atmospheric methane levels have risen from 715ppb 200 years ago to 1770+ppb today. The increase comes from a few different human sources – pastoral farming is one of them.
b) The work on soil carbon fixation is interesting but not conclusive. Managing soils to fix carbon is a part of the solution, but I thought that you were arguing that is no problem to solve?
By the way, as you’ve argued in the past that you’ve never been funded to hold your views on global warming, who’s paying for you to fly out to the Heartland Institute’s “climate conference” in New York at the beginning of next month? Are you receiving speaker fees?
February 6th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
On a different aspect, why is it that the Govt requires sustainability yet it’s supporters and the Luddites (Greens) constantly seek to stop development of alternatives, eg hydro, wind etc.
When will evryone wake up to the reality that nuclear has to be the answer, unless of course we are to go back to a pre-industrial age.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Adam, NZ people dont like nuclear anything, it is (and they are) as simple as that.
There are other practical problems too, but the biggest hurdle is still public opinion.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
“When will evryone wake up to the reality that nuclear has to be the answer, unless of course we are to go back to a pre-industrial age.”
Nuclear certainly is capable of being part of the answer, and has the advantage of known technology and costs, I’m optimistic that solar, the cost of which is rapidly falling, will eventually be an important part of the asnswer.
Obviously the lower the costs of these alternatives the less the impact will be on economic growth.
Could we see power from solar cheaper than power from coal before long even without a carbon tax? After all the nashing of teeth over AGW that would be amusing.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Andrew W, naaaaaah, won’t work. Yasee, the world has been cooling not warmening, these past nine years so that means more cloud for the land the LWC so that’s buggered your solar heating. Nookeller is the only way to go. The only non polluting source for mega truckloads of megawatts. Kiwis are too dumb to see it. It’s a hell of a lot cheaper to pay some other bugger to take the spent fuel rods than it is to pay the Bilious Bitch’s $19k per household every year.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Kimble
Your comment is interesting. On that basis I am amazed they consent to having X Ray machines and radiotherapy in NZ, but as you say in many respects a simple lot.
However, of course NZ is the country where nuclear power is confused with nuclear arms. It is the place where as an eminent scientist pointed out there are more radioactive emissions from X Ray machines at Auckland hospital than there would be from a nuclear ship visit. But when did the Luddites ever allow truth to get in the way of lies and deception.
I predict that with declining oil resources it will not be too long before the bug container ships are nuclear powered. No doubt NZ will send it’s products to market by sail, after all we would not want to take advantage of progress would we. Witness the way our agricultural research is hindered by the Luddites.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Gareth: got a link to some similar reports that come to different conclusions?
Adolf, hydro is the answer. We’re good at it. Nuclear is proven, but the damn things take forever to build and cost a fortune. Hydro doesn’t have that problem. It does have some problems with drought, but if you build enough of the things you still have water.
February 6th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
“Yasee, the world has been cooling not warmening, these past nine years…”
I really like this guy Tamino, he does the maths by the book, he trys to avoid the spin, if you look at the graphs in the link you can see that the level of ‘noise’ in the data makes a period as short as 9 years of limited use in assessing climate trends, it’s easy to find several such periods suposedly without warming since 1975, but the overall trend is unmistakable.
You interested in a bet along the lines he talks about?
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/you-bet/#more-569
February 6th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Paul: From Chapter 4 of Towards a New Global Climate Treaty – Looking Beyond 2012, ed J Boston (VUW) late 2007:
You can get the Treasury modelling (the Infometrics report commissioned by Treasury to test sensitivity to higher carbon prices) from the climate change office: (http://www.climatechange.govt.nz/files/general-equilibrium-analysis.pdf)
February 6th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I remember when the Ice Age started in NZ, it was 1976, and a bloody cool summer it was. Fortunately the following year saw the arrival of Global Warming, and the summer was bloody hot.
Since then I always know how we are progressing. If it’s cool, it’s the Ice Age on top, and if it’s warm, well, you know.
Andrew W. 7.5 tonnes of C is about right, but it’s the gas CO2 that we do the sums for credits and debits on. Teenage P rad forest sequesters about 20-30 tonnes of CO2 per ha annually.
Also, most people are keeping quiet about our native forests, which may.. or may not be sequestering CO2. We just may need to knock over the lot if we are to preserve the religion.
JC
February 6th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Gareth says:
“Hi Owen,
a) Atmospheric methane levels have risen from 715ppb 200 years ago to 1770+ppb today. The increase comes from a few different human sources – pastoral farming is one of them.”
Well, Gareth the Earth is not flat – that is to say it is not a perfect non- differiented globe. How many data points do you think gathered the 200 year old set compared to the current sets. Data must be collected from randomly distributed sites and we still have few points in the oceans. Also 200 years ago the mini ice age ended and things began to warm up. Many experts conclude that the major source of atmospheric methane is wetlands (marchgas) and as they warm up they emit more. (Should I be fart-taxed for restoring the wetland on my property?) Termites, ruminants and a host of other sources make their contribution and we barely understand the system at all. But now methane concentrations are falling and the AGW models don ‘t predict that.
So what is your source that says the increase comes from a few human sources? And if so, what human sources are now causing the decrease?
Then Gareth says:
“b) The work on soil carbon fixation is interesting but not conclusive. Managing soils to fix carbon is a part of the solution, but I thought that you were arguing that is no problem to solve?”
Maybe I can suggest you attend a remedial reading or remedial comprehension course. My point (b) read:
(b) complete the soil research which suggests that turning pine forests into pastures actually increases the carbon dioxide sink of the New Zealand land mass over the long term.
Note: I am suggesting we “complete” the research which “suggests” ie it is currently inconclusive. However very recent US research is making the same suggestion. The researchers said that US and EU agriculture is a poor sink because they feed their livestock on annuals while countries like NZ feed their livestock on deeper rooting perennials.
And if there is no problem to solve (which I suspect) then further enriching our soil is a “no regrets” policy and certainly is much to be preferred to reducing the production from our most successful exporting sector because of a mistaken policy.
Then Gareth moves to the ad hominem:
“By the way, as you’ve argued in the past that you’ve never been funded to hold your views on global warming, who’s paying for you to fly out to the Heartland Institute’s “climate conference” in New York at the beginning of next month? Are you receiving speaker fees?”
Gareth,
I suspect you are confusing me with Al Gore who charges hundreds of thousands for his presentations and makes millions out of his propaganda.
The conference organisers have invited me to present a paper and are paying my air fares. No speakers fees, and I pay for my own extra few days on each side of the conference while I visit friends and colleagues.
The conference has many sections and one deals with the impact of downstream policy. I am not presenting a paper on “global warming” but on the rush to justify draconian interventions in the way we live and locate within our cities in the name of reducing carbon footprints. So I shall be presenting evidence which shows that if you want to reduce the carbon footprint of the urban household the present round of planning fads (promoting public transport, urban limits, higher densities,etc) are all totally wrong headed and misplaced.”
Others will be dealing with global warming and climate science and so on.
I am sticking to what is very old knitting. Much of my research into the futility of “shaping urban form” and the like goes back to the early sixties.
The government paid for most of my University Education in NZ and the Harkness foundation paid me to study at Berkeley where I studied transport economics etc under Mel Webber. So you can write to them and complain if you like.
Cheers.
February 6th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Owen, don’t forget you get a massive buildup of organic mass (needles) under closed canopy pines, and in our wetter climate a goodly proportion forms soil, so you get the double whammy of tree sequestration and soil buildup.
Dyson also mentions something interesting to me and thats more roots and thinner tops to trees as a result of more CO2. Depending on how increased root competition stacks up, that could mean higher stockings (and thus yields) can be carried in the forests.
It’s also promising for agroforestry (less shading), but beware of an increased lateral spread of roots with pines.
JC
February 6th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
You are quite right. The interplays are complex and our ignorance is huge.
These are two totally different ecosystems. One is purely bacterial and vegetative. The other involves perrenial grasses, bacteria and marsupials.
Do you know anyone who remotely knows how to write the carbon cycle for the two systems?
But government, and others, seem to assume that when you replace a pine forest with pasture you go from X tonnes of carbon sequestration to zero tonnes.
All I am saying is that the end result is not zero and that the pasture cycle is annual and forever, and there is some evidence that over the long term the pasture is superior.
But I don’t know. And nor does anyone else. And yet we are talking of finding landowners for turning forest into pasture. What if we should be paying them?
February 6th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
There’s a Motu Working Paper that shows the racing start that clearfelled forest has for sequestration. No 50 something, but their site has changed and I can’t yet pick it up.
Re conversion to grass. The more interesting issues for me are not so much the amount of sequestration but the side bits..
1. If growing topsoil is a CO2 good, then the annual loss to wind erosion (in particular) becomes an even worse disaster than we thought.
2. And if introducing dairying to the drier parts of the country is very good economics, what are the downsides to irrigation and stream pollution?
3. And if no till cultivation is a monster CO2 good, when does Monsanto get its Nobel Prize?
4. Forty/fifty years ago, old Pat Borthwich used to introduce various so called weeds and perennials to his pastures to give his livestock variety of diet and added health. His reasoning (as an old Pom) was that the introduced Pom livestock had this as part of their heritage. You only had to eat his genuine old English strawberries and tomatoes to know he was on to something.
Be that as it may, Pat was one of those people who instinctively knew that the hugely modified landscape and practices lacked diversity, and that included the *taste* of things.. whether animal, vegetable or fruit. I have a feeling that his old ideas would fit right in with a carbon conscious world, if only because his ideas were balanced.
JC
February 6th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Owen: How many data points do you think gathered the 200 year old set compared to the current sets.
They come from studies of gas bubbles in ice. Can be dated pretty accurately, and measured very precisely. As the atmosphere is considered “well-mixed” (ie pretty much the same everywhere), it doesn’t much matter where you measure (although it has to be said that collecting gases on an ice cap is much better than, say, directly over a marsh). You might care to read IPCC AR4, WG1 report, Chapter 2. It includes a good summary on GHG gases, their sources and sinks. Current methane levels are unprecedented in at least the last 650k years.
The stabilisation in atmospheric methane levels (not going up or down much) is not terribly well understood, but could be related to the draining of natural wetland, amongst other things. But there is considerable concern about methane outgassing from permafrost as it melts, and methane hydrates bubbling off the sea floor as the ocean warms, so we shouldn’t complacent.
Owen: And if there is no problem to solve (which I suspect) then further enriching our soil is a “no regrets” policy
Oh, I think you rather more than “suspect” there’s no real problem, or why else did you lend your name to the recent call for a Royal Commission of Enquiry, which explicitly states:
“We are all of the view that CO2 in the atmosphere is a benefit not a threat to humans, and there is no need to launch a massive assault on our lifestyle, industry and prosperity to solve a non problem.
That’s a pretty explicit denial of any problem, wouldn’t you say?
Owen: Maybe I can suggest you attend a remedial reading or remedial comprehension course..
You’re no slouch with the ad homs yourself, though I wouldn’t classify my original question as an ad hom.
I think it’s a legitimate matter of public interest to know who’s funding your trip to this “conference”. After all, you and your organisation seek to influence public policy in New Zealand, and to know that you have been provided a platform by one of the US’s most active right wing climate denial think tanks helps to provide useful context for the things you advocate. It is interesting to note that real scientific conferences generally don’t pay airfares for those presenting papers.
A further question: Does the Heartland Institute also fund the International Climate Science Coalition, which has many of the same members as the NZ CSC, and whose secretariat seems to be NZ-based, with Terry Dunleavy as a director and Bryan Leyland as Secretary? I note you are on the “Policy Advisory Board”.
But government, and others, seem to assume that when you replace a pine forest with pasture you go from X tonnes of carbon sequestration to zero tonnes.
Nobody “assumes” that – it’s in the Kyoto rules. They state that when you chop down a forest you have to treat the sequestered carbon as lost back to the atmosphere. There are good reasons why that isn’t (completely) true, and it’s an active area for negotiation in post-Kyoto talks. Soil sequestration of carbon is a very interesting area of current research – in particular the use of bio-char to directly add carbon to soils – good for fertility and for locking up carbon.
But of course that’s irrelevant, because you explicitly deny the existence of any problem.
Good luck in New York. I doubt you’ll find your arguments challenged much…
February 6th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Sure does sum it up when so many words from so many experts can say so little. The whole Man-made Global Warming industry is now being funded by vested self interested parties employing their `pet scientists and self imposed `world leaders in the field` who are only to willing to produce facts? and figures? to ensure their next round of funding that the whole ridiculous saga needs to stop, step back and breathe in the fresh air of reality. There are some pretty shitty things being done to parts of the earth by irresponsible industry. Identify them, question those responsible and sort the mess out at their cost. End of story.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
Any denialists/sceptics interested in taking me up on the bet I mentioned at 1:31 pm?
February 6th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
A simple tactic is to introduce carbon charging while taking GST off power.
The purpose is not more revenue but a change in tax regime.
February 6th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Owen, you make some great points here. Kyoto is based on a very shaky assumption – carbon sequestration by forests. No-one really knows how much carbon is sequestered or emitted by forests or pasture. So the Kyoto calculations could be completely incorrect.
Climate change may or may not be correct – I would veer towards it having a certain amount of truth. But as far as I can see the things that will REALLY make a difference to emissions are also GOOD for the economy.
Agriculture emits a lot of methane and nitrous oxide – I am conducting research in this area. We can reduce it somewhat, and should find more methods of reducing it in future. But as we are dealing with natural processes that are already very efficient there is a limit to how much we can reduce these emissions.
Transport however is based on internal combustion engines which are only about 20% efficient. By substituting more efficient transport methods – trains & boats instead of long-distance trucks, electric cars and buses for short-distance commuting etc – we can make enormous reductions in emissions. At the same time we reduce our use of imported oil, saving money and helping the economy. We are also more self-sufficient, which would be very useful if there was a war.
(By the way, hybrid cars are NOT the solution, they don’t save that much fuel and are very expensive. True electric vehicles are much more promising.)
The electricity must come from somewhere. NZ won’t accept nuclear power, I won’t even bother proposing that. We are already overly reliant on hydro and have power shortages when there is a drought, we should be supplementing this with alternative generation methods. Wind is great, but cannot be turned on and off at will. Wave power should be more reliable if developed. New solar technology is very promising. Geothermal power may be the most promising for NZ. But the main disadvantage with some of these is that they are subject to the fluctuations of nature. You need some elements of the grid that you can turn on and off, so our coal stations will still be useful for peak demand into the future.
The fact is that it is far more efficient to generate electricity using coal to run an electric car, than to run a petrol car. This is because a coal fired power station is much more efficient than an internal combustion engine. If we could move towards electric transportation, even if powered by coal, we would massively reduce emissions. We would also reduce costs (less imported oil) and increase self-sufficiency (we have tonnes of coal). The coal will just be exported to China anyway and burnt there if we don’t use it.
The other major area of emissions that is ignored by government and Kyoto is imports. We import loads of plastic junk that just gets thrown away (eg. cheap plastic toys, cheap tools that just break). This is produced in highly unsustainable ways in countries with minimal environmental regulations, who have not signed Kyoto. And every company that moves away from NZ (eg. Fisher & Paykel) exacerbates this problem. If we could reduce imports, and replace them by local manufacturing and longer maintenance of products, we would greatly reduce global emissions. We would also support local businesses and improve the economy no end. But in terms of the Kyoto calculations we would not have reduced emissions at all, which shows Kyoto has little basis in reality.
If we focus on the right things, we can reduce emissions and improve the economy at the same time. We may not be able to become completely carbon neutral, but can make realistic reductions. We may not be able to do this within the framework of Kyoto however.
February 7th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I predict that REALITY will win: when Kiwis SEE THE IMPACT OF KYOTO POLICIES HITTING THEM IN THEIR POCKETS. All this arguing before the event is pointless when it comes to trying to get the socialists to see the error of their ways.
February 7th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Andrew W said…
I don’t have a lot of confidence in any sort of economic projections going out several decades
and Phil U said…
i mean..treasury can’t even get twelve-month predictions right..!
Andrew & Phil,
I am amazed at both of your distrust in econometric projections as you stated above but your’re both so fond of the IPCC projections. Doesn’t it occurr to both of you that they’re almost similar type of maths (algorithms) that economists , engineers, physicists, climate scientists are using? I get it that both of you don’t realise that the econometric models that are developed & used by economists use the same matrix decomposition as those models used by climate scientists, nuclear physicists, control & electrical engineers and so forth.
So, you think that matrix decomposition computation in climate numerical modeling is more accurate (since the projections are for decades ahead), then the same matrix decomposition that are used in econometric modeling where the output is projected for decades ahead? I am lost at why you accept one model but reject the other , even they’re both based on the same fundamental algebraic computations.
Phil U,
Did you go to see the live readings by the psychics from Sensing Murder Shows, when they toured your town? They’re currently touring NZ at the moment. These psychics are vultures & leechers since they prey on people who are gullible, such as you. Currency traders including John Key are NOT vultures or leechers, since they don’t prey on gullible people.
February 7th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
“I am lost at why you accept one model but reject the other , even they’re both based on the same fundamental algebraic computations.”
I’m not surprised that you are lost FF, How the atmosphere and hydrosphere respond to forcing from a stronger GH effect is physics, one of the biggest problems climate modellers face is coupling the atmosphere and hydrosphere.
That’s childs play compared to forecasting world economic growth which is determined by; politics and just about everything else in the human world, technology, resources, climate, population growth, and God knows what else.
Doesn’t each additional factor square the complexity of the problem? And can you tell me how you meaningfully calculate the growth from technological innovations when you have no idea what those innovations could be?
If you look at the IPCC projections you will see that the economists don’t actually make any predictions as to the economic or even population growth they expect over the coming century, rather they rely on a range of possible scenarios. as a result most of the uncertainty about the IPCC climate projections are a product of these economic uncertainties rather than the physics, which is comparitively simple.
Ultimately the proof is in the pudding, over and over again we have seen economic forecasts for only short periods into the future derailed, whereas the climate warming forecasts made over 25 years ago that relied on the CO2 builtup that’s been observed are still looking good.
Are you interested in taking up the bet FF?
February 8th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Andrew, what is the difference between forecasting and projection?
February 8th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Easy! A forecast is analog while a projection is digital, and digital’s better!
February 8th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
FF, here’s an interesting video that nicely covers the history of our developing understanding of AGW, and how ideology has been the motivation behind AGW denialism. As you know I have long been interested in this aspect of the debate and historian Naomi Oreskes covers this ideological angle well near the end. As a believer in the market I find it annoying that others like Singer etc who share my ideology are so comfortable with their belief that the ends justifies the means, don’t these people understand that by using such means they don’t get the same ends and just end up doing their own ideology (and mine) huge damage in the eyes of the wider puplic?
http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.asp?showID=13459