ETS in danger
The Government’s Emissions Trading Scheme may be heading the same way as their Biofuels legislation – with growing realisation the cures may be much worse than the disease.
Colin Espiner blogged yesterday that “climate change policies no longer sustainable”. This may be the first instance of a press gallery journalist saying that, and this week could be seen in future as the tipping point. Quoting Espiner:
A year sure is a long time in politics. Remember “sustainability”? Remember how New Zealand was going to become the world’s first “carbon neutral” country? Remember electric cars, 90% renewable energy, bold plans to slash vehicle emissions by 40%?
The United Nations sure does. It’s awarded Prime Minister Helen Clark a gong for her commitment to fighting climate change, despite the fact that not a single of these pledges has yet been formally implemented, let alone had any effect. Our carbon emissions went up last year, not down. They’ll probably be up again this year.
And yet funnily enough you don’t hear much from the Government these days about sustainability. The plan to allow councils to whack an extra 15c on to every litre of petrol is on the back-burner. The idea to force petrol companies to blend their gas with a minimum 5% biofuel suddenly doesn’t seem like such a good idea when respectable environmental lobby groups are warning that most of the world’s biofuel production is unsustainable, is being achieved by felling rainforest, and has led to a huge increase in world food prices.
Add to this that the scheme at the heart of the Government’s ambitious plans to tackle climate change, the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), is under heavy fire, and not just from the usual suspects. A bevy of reports from respected consultancies and research firms like the Cawthron Institute, the Institute of Economic Research, and Infometrics say the ETS will cost the country a fortune, will only result in a marginal reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, and could have severe unintended environmental side-effects.
Coming up with solutions which are good for the Environment and do not hurt consumers and businesses greatly is not easy. This is why soundbites such as “carbon neutrality” are so irresponsible. It’s also one reasons why I support roll out of fibre to the home – it is one of the few policies which should be both good for the economy and good for the environment.
Paula Oliver in the Herald reports the Government is now considering delays, as sticking extra costs on petrol at a time when prices are already record high will probably just be seen as revenue collecting. The beneficial effects of encouraging more fuel efficient vehicles and more public transport use are already happening at $1.85 a litre I suspect and a few cents more may have little effect except to piss people off.
Timing is everything sometimes!
May 1st, 2008 at 12:42 pm
INTERESTING:
The Real Cost of Tackling Climate Change
By STEVEN F. HAYWARD
April 28, 2008; Page A19
“The usual chorus of environmentalists and editorial writers has chimed in to attack President Bush’s recent speech on climate change. In his address of April 23, he put forth a goal of stopping the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2025.
“Way too little and way too late,” runs the refrain, followed by the claim that nothing less than an 80% reduction in emissions by the year 2050 will suffice – what I call the “80 by 50″ target. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have endorsed it. John McCain is not far behind, calling for a 65% reduction.
We all ought to reflect on what an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050 really means. When we do, it becomes clear that the president’s target has one overwhelming virtue: Assuming emissions curbs are even necessary, his goal is at least realistic.
The same cannot be said for the carbon emissions targets espoused by the three presidential candidates and environmentalists. Indeed, these targets would send us back to emissions levels last witnessed when the cotton gin was in daily use.
Begin with the current inventory of carbon dioxide emissions – CO2 being the principal greenhouse gas generated almost entirely by energy use. According to the Department of Energy’s most recent data on greenhouse gas emissions, in 2006 the U.S. emitted 5.8 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide, or just under 20 tons per capita. An 80% reduction in these emissions from 1990 levels means that the U.S. cannot emit more than about one billion metric tons of CO2 in 2050.
Were man-made carbon dioxide emissions in this country ever that low? The answer is probably yes – from historical energy data it is possible to estimate that the U.S. last emitted one billion metric tons around 1910. But in 1910, the U.S. had 92 million people, and per capita income, in current dollars, was about $6,000.
By the year 2050, the Census Bureau projects that our population will be around 420 million. This means per capita emissions will have to fall to about 2.5 tons in order to meet the goal of 80% reduction.
It is likely that U.S. per capita emissions were never that low – even back in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood. The only nations in the world today that emit at this low level are all poor developing nations, such as Belize, Mauritius, Jordan, Haiti and Somalia.
If that comparison seems unfair, consider that even the least-CO2 emitting industrialized nations do not come close to the 2050 target. France and Switzerland, compact nations that generate almost all of their electricity from nonfossil fuel sources (nuclear for France, hydro for Switzerland) emit about 6.5 metric tons of CO2 per capita.
The daunting task of reaching one billion metric tons of CO2 emissions by 2050 comes into even greater relief when we look at the American economy, sector-by-sector. The Energy Department breaks down emissions into residential, commercial (office buildings, etc.), industrial, and transportation (planes, trains and automobiles); electricity consumption is apportioned to each.
Consider the residential sector. At the present time, American households emit 1.2 billion tons of CO2 – 20% higher than the entire nation’s emissions must be in 2050. If households are to emit no more than their present share of CO2, emissions will have to be reduced to 204 million tons by 2050. But in 2050, there will be another 40 million residential households in the U.S.
Today, the average residence in the U.S. uses about 10,500 kilowatt hours of electricity and emits 11.4 tons of CO2 per year (much more if you are Al Gore or John Edwards and live in a mansion). To stay within the magic number, average household emissions will have to fall to no more than 1.5 tons per year. In our current electricity infrastructure, this would mean using no more than about 2,500 KwH per year. This is not enough juice to run the average hot water heater.
You can forget refrigerators, microwaves, clothes dryers and flat screen TVs. Even a house tricked out with all the latest high-efficiency EnergyStar appliances and compact fluorescent lights won’t come close. The same daunting energy math applies to the industrial, commercial and transportation sectors as well. The clear implication is that we shall have to replace virtually the entire fossil fuel electricity infrastructure over the next four decades with CO2-free sources – a multitrillion dollar proposition, if it can be done at all.
Natural gas – the preferred coal substitute of the moment – won’t come close. If we replaced every single existing coal plant with a natural gas plant, CO2 emissions from electric power generation alone would still be more than twice the 2050 target. Most environmentalists remain opposed to nuclear power, of course. It is unlikely that renewables – wind, solar, and biomass – can ever make up more than about 20% of our electricity supply.
Suppose, however, that a breakthrough in carbon sequestration, a revival of nuclear power, and a significant improvement in the cost and effectiveness of renewables were to enable us to reduce the carbon footprint of electricity production. That would still leave transportation.
Right now our cars and trucks consume about 180 billion gallons of motor fuel. To meet the 2050 target, we shall have to limit consumption of gasoline to about 31 billion gallons, unless a genuine carbon-neutral liquid fuel can be produced. (Ethanol isn’t it.) To show how unrealistic this is, if the entire nation drove nothing but Toyota Priuses in 2050, we’d still overshoot the transportation emissions target by 40%.
The enthusiasm for an 80% reduction target is often justified on grounds that national policy should set an ambitious goal. However, claims on behalf of alternative energy sources – biofuels, hydrogen, windpower and so forth – either do not match up to the scale of the energy required, or are not cost-competitive in current form.
How on God’s green earth will we make up the difference? Someone should put this question to the candidates. And not let them slide past it with glittering generalities.”
Mr. Hayward is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and the author of the annual “Index of Leading Environmental Indicators,” from which this article is adapted.
May 1st, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Another National flip flop.
They bounce they somersault….
They slavishly copy Labour when it suits and then slip and slide back again.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Don’t worry GWW, Labour will just say they are binning it, then, if they get in next time, they’ll pass it anyway like with s59. Be of good cheer. A little busllshit goes a long way in modern NZ.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Relax. Take a cup of tea and read this:
BREAKING NEWS: Global Warming Will ‘Stop’, New Peer-Reviewed Study Says
Global Warming Takes a Break for Nearly 20 Years?
at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml
To me these findings make two important points. The first is that natural climate variation means that there will be no warming until 2015. This is wonderful news, because it gives us lots of time to stop and think before we leap. NO more biofuels and ruminant follies.
The next point is that all the climate models failed to predict this — until now! That means that all the climate models have grossly underestimated natural variation and they are all must be regarded with extreme suspicion. As Richard Wood of the Hadley Centre said it is difficult to predict climate 10 years ahead, so we can only assume that the prediction that man-made global warming will rear its ugly head beyond 2015 is also very uncertain.
Therefore we need a Royal Commission to look at the whole thing before we completely destroy our economy for something that may not exist and is certainly not imminent.
Definitely time for a tea break.
Where is David Lange when we need him? Or should I say “Where is Margaret Pope?”
May 1st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Our barren Leaders deliver more still-born policy…
May 1st, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Take a cup of tea and go here to see that global warming is taking a long cup of tea.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml
To me, there are two important points. The first is that natural climate variation means that there will be no warming until 2015. This is wonderful news, because it gives us lots of time to stop and think before we leap.
The next point is that all the climate models failed to predict this — until now! That means that all the climate models have grossly underestimated natural variation and they are all must be regarded with extreme suspicion. As the man from Hadley said it is difficult to predict climate 10 years ahead, so we can only assume that the prediction that man-made global warming will rear its ugly head beyond 2015 is also very uncertain.
Therefore we need a royal commission to look at the whole thing before we completely destroy our economy for something that may not exist and is certainly not imminent.
So it’s time for a cup of tea. Where is David Lange when we need him? Or should I say, “Where is Margaret Pope when we need her?”
May 1st, 2008 at 1:24 pm
“Mr. Hayward is a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute”
From the people who told us what a great idea invading Iraq would be.
Nuff said.
May 1st, 2008 at 1:27 pm
I thought it was funny that Parker was questioning NZIER’s numbers saying tehy weren;t credible yet conveniently forgets the govt’s own problems in calculating NZ’s carbon liabilities. Remeber the burning cheque?
May 1st, 2008 at 1:41 pm
I desperately hope that Labour do not lose their arrogance over this bill, they are handing the election to the Nat’s on a plate.
This issue only highlights the lies of dear leader and her corrupt party, with one breath she is on TV saying that she “feels” for those who are suffering at this point in time and the next shot is that of David Parker (is there a more smug wanker in the Labour party?) telling us that it is going to happen.
The electorate has lost interest in this stupid plan and will vote against any party that introduces it.
May 1st, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Agree with the comments about David Parker though I suspect he is nothing more than a party loyalist who does what he is told because he knows no better. The ETS is the absolute height of lunacy and it is typical of this country’s masochistic tendencies. Why is anyone giving it any credibility – we seem determined to make life as difficult as possible for ourselves in NZ. Is it part of some sort of loyalty test – how much pain can we inflict on ourselves before we see the light and fuck off to Australia ? We are little guys in a big guys world, accept it and stop trying to be any different. Nothing we do in NZ is going to make any difference to global warming, climate change or anything else that is going on around the planet. Lets concentrate on what is good for us before we drown in our own excrement.
May 1st, 2008 at 2:09 pm
I think the Government has always overestimated the public’s willingness to pay, particularly in the face of a well orcehstrated campaign by business and bad economic times. Not all voters are as well rewarded as Labour MPs and their friends and you do have wonder if they are slightly out of touch when they say “prices will only rise 10%”. That’s only on top of all the other usual price rises. When you are arguing about whether 20,000 or 50,000 jobs will be lost as a result of the ETS you have pretty much lost the argument.
Casual watcher
Don’t be so sure about Parker doing just as he’s told. Much of the biofuel and thermal moratorium comes straight from his office.
May 1st, 2008 at 2:12 pm
BREAKING NEWS: Global Warming Will ‘Stop’, New Peer-Reviewed Study Says
Global Warming Takes a Break for Nearly 20 Years?
Today’s UK Telegraph reports: “Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said. Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a “lull” for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North America is expected to cool slightly over the decade while the tropical Pacific remains unchanged. This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.”
For full story,go to :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml
This is surely good news.
This natural climate variation means that there will be no warming until 2015. This gives us plenty of time to stop and think before we leap.
We do not need any more bio-fuel disasters, or threats to put our dairy farmers out of business. And we certainly do NOT need to rush into an emission trading scheme – unless we are determined to look like the dumbest kids on the block.
The next point is that none of the climate models predicted this “lull” – until now!
The climate models have grossly underestimated natural variation and they must all be regarded with extreme suspicion.
As Richard Wood of the Hadley says in the report “climate predictions for a decade ahead would always be to some extent uncertain.” If it is difficult to predict climate 10 years ahead, we can only assume that the prediction that man-made global warming will reappear beyond 2015 is also very uncertain.
Therefore we need a Royal Commission to look at the whole issue before we destroy our economy in response to a threat that may not exist, and is certainly not imminent and requiring urgent action.
It’s definitely time to pause for a cup of tea. Or even two or three.
Where is David Lange when we need him? Or should I say “Where is Margaret Pope when we need her?”
May 1st, 2008 at 2:13 pm
BREAKING NEWS: Global Warming Will ‘Stop’, New Peer-Reviewed Study Says
Global Warming Takes a Break for Nearly 20 Years?
Today’s UK Telegraph reports: “Global warming will stop until at least 2015 because of natural variations in the climate, scientists have said. Researchers studying long-term changes in sea temperatures said they now expect a “lull” for up to a decade while natural variations in climate cancel out the increases caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. The average temperature of the sea around Europe and North America is expected to cool slightly over the decade while the tropical Pacific remains unchanged. This would mean that the 0.3°C global average temperature rise which has been predicted for the next decade by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change may not happen, according to the paper published in the scientific journal Nature.”
For full story, (if the link does not work) go to :
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml
This is surely good news.
This natural climate variation means that there will be no warming until 2015. This gives us plenty of time to stop and think before we leap.
We do not need any more bio-fuel disasters, or threats to put our dairy farmers out of business. And we certainly do NOT need to rush into an emission trading scheme – unless we are determined to look like the dumbest kids on the block.
The next point is that none of the climate models predicted this “lull” – until now!
The climate models have grossly underestimated natural variation and they must all be regarded with extreme suspicion.
As Richard Wood of the Hadley says in the report “climate predictions for a decade ahead would always be to some extent uncertain.” If it is difficult to predict climate 10 years ahead, we can only assume that the prediction that man-made global warming will reappear beyond 2015 is also very uncertain.
Therefore we need a Royal Commission to look at the whole issue before we destroy our economy in response to a threat that may not exist, and is certainly not imminent and requiring urgent action.
It’s definitely time to pause for a cup of tea. Or even two or three.
May 1st, 2008 at 2:14 pm
From the people who told us what a great idea invading Iraq would be.
Nuff said.
So when are you off to Iraq to tell all the Shiites and Kurds how great they would have been if they were still living under Saddam Hussein?
May 1st, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Insider (2:09) – did you mean to type “office”, or orifice?
May 1st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Its looks like stupid arrogance on this issue is being replaced by dimwitted arrogance. They can’t claim ignorance at their level without convicting themselves of fraud through reckless negligence. The people will have their revenge.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Don’t mistake bad policy for no answer. The problem is the Labour govt’s complete inability to design policy that works. It is possible to get a reasonable policy, but you need a govt that understands incentives, externalities and markets to get it right.
Phil, I’m reading your copied article and coming to a different answer than you. It seems to say that if America had a similar percentage nuclear power to France (not unachievable if someone cared enough to do it) and drove cars with equivalent efficiency to a Prius, they’d just about be there? Doesn’t seem that hard to me.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:44 pm
PaulL, I agree with you. Knowing Steven Hayward’s previous writings a bit, I think he is being mischievous. I think his point is that the politicians who are making these wild claims are not saying HOW they would go about achieving the results.
By the way, I think it was Christopher Monckton pointed out that anyone else doing something as barefacedly self-interested as Al Gore and his business investments in Carbon Credit Trading Schemes, if it wasn’t for the fact that it is a cause celebre with the Left, would have been off to the slammer for corrupt practices long ago, along with the Enron bosses and the like.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:46 pm
# 3-coil (171) Add karma Subtract karma +2 Says:
May 1st, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Re your comment – Our barren Leaders deliver more still-born policy…
I hope you had a coil fitted. One of you is quite enough.
May 1st, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Business seems to think it is a great idea. Costs on the taxpayer with no avenue to recoup and ithelps them market their product in the global sphere. Don’t imagine National will knock it back if they’re such good friends with business.
I certainly don’t mind it being held up. The saying that ‘the philosophy of this century is the commonsense of the next’ is profoundly true. We have a hundred years to discover that Labour was right all along, but we’ll be dead by then. Who cares…
May 1st, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Bevan
Instead, ask the women how they’re doing. Apart from the enforced covering up now, they’re still in danger of getting raped just as in the Saddam years. There’ll only be a slight delay while the new powers lift the cover to see if the woman is pretty enough.
Not to mention the changes that Bush wrought when he and the new ‘independent’ government set up the grand plan for Iraq. Women have even less rights now than they did then.
I remember a woman activist on Hard Talk about a year before Bush made his move, saying that she didn’t want outside invasion. It would only make their situation worse. How right she was.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Jum (3:46) – that’s a nasty response from someone with such an obviously thin skin!
I don’t think the NZ Labour party idiots running this corrupt government need you to defend them though. After all, they boast that they are in a battle “for power”, and that it’s a battleground for “the big boys”. If you find my comment offends your delicate sensibilities, you’d be shocked at the slime spewed out by Cullen, Clark, Mallard, Benson-Dope etc – no doubt elected by fools like you.
Jum, it seems Labour (and its supporters) can dish it out, but can’t take it eh?
May 1st, 2008 at 5:45 pm
I see that the UK has buckled to PC pressure and decided to forecast only Muslim weather for the UK.
It’s sometimes sunni but mostly shi’ite.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:56 pm
Absolutely hillarious Owen, In fact I have to go cause I just shi’ited my pants laughing.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:56 pm
“that’s a nasty response from someone with such an obviously thin skin!”
Why worry? He’s just one more simple small minded ignorant thug leftist full of bullshit, envy and hate. Ask the Iraqi wimmen he says-
From the article “Founding Mothers, the women rebuilding Iraq” By Janice Shaw Crouse
——————————————————
At a reception sponsored by the Foundation for Defense of Democracies late last week (2003), the 20-member Iraqi Women’s Delegation met 20 American women. The delegation’s message is clear:
The U.S. celebrity war protesters are far off the mark in criticizing the war in Iraq; instead, the protesters should be talking about how the totalitarian and racist policies of Saddam’s Baathist regime destroyed their nation and killed some two million of their citizens. The 20 Iraqi women praise the United States for liberating them and their country from 30-plus years of tyranny. Almost all know someone who suffered under Saddam’s iron-fisted dictatorship; all are grateful to see an end to fear and terror and are eager to realize their hopes for freedom and democracy.
When Mrs. Colin Powell was introduced at the reception, they cheered and started snapping pictures. When Mrs. Paul Bremer was introduced, they were awestruck; grinning from ear to ear, they clapped and bowed in appreciation. They begged her to come forward and speak. Both former U.N. ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick and undersecretary of state Paula Dobriansky received warm, enthusiastic receptions. All of us were asked to pose for photographs with the Iraqis.
The women expressed appreciation over and over again and talked with deep sorrow about the Iraqis who were executed, gassed, or mass murdered. They don’t even want to think about the torture chambers and the unmarked mass graves documented by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Pentagon files — 18 tons of documents consisting of five million pages of atrocities. For the women in the delegation, the stories of Saddam’s brutality are all too true, as is the fact that women, especially, were targeted by the regime.
For them, talk of peaceful solutions is unrealistic; their personal experience belies any attempt at “containment” or “compromise.” Several of them were born during the terrorist regime and have never known peace in their homeland; all of them were affected personally by Saddam’s horror. They know that they cannot stop the Baathists without the United States’ military force. They know that they cannot institute democracy alone; they need assistance from U.S. peace forces.
May 1st, 2008 at 5:59 pm
All of this climate change seems like one of the best cases of “I told you so” to surface in a while. Remember all the leftists guys? They wouldn’t hear a word against it. Now, their house of cards is collapsing about their dumbfuck heads, and all they can do is pretend not to see it happening.
May 1st, 2008 at 6:22 pm
“The Government’s Emissions Trading Scheme may be heading the same way as their Biofuels legislation – with growing realisation the cures may be much worse than the disease.”
Yes, thanks to fervent capaigning by The National Party and David Farrar against any sustainabilty legislation (most of which will up living costs of ordinary New Zealanders), it has become politically unfesable for Labour to make meanigful progess on these issues.
I’ve said it before David, if we’re going to get anywhere with climate change people like you within the National Party must take it off the political table, and agree that NZ is going to have to take some small, short-term hits (next 5-20 years) in order to stop some medium-term large hits (10-30 years).
You see, if one party says “we ought to restrict consumption, because the costs of not doing so will far outwiegh the costs of doing so”, and another party says “you can consume as much as you like and there will be no costs”, guess who’s going to win the rhetorical debate as far as the general public’s concerned?
National has cynically turned our economic and environmental future into a political football. It’s disgraceful.
May 1st, 2008 at 6:29 pm
“National has cynically turned our economic and environmental future into a political football. It’s disgraceful.”
I’ve only got one thing to say to you Nome—DIDDUMS.
May 1st, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Bevan:
“So when are you off to Iraq to tell all the Shiites and Kurds how great they would have been if they were still living under Saddam Hussein?”
By that logic we should be fabricating intelligence, and spending $3 trillion in order to get rid of each tin-pot dictator around the world, even if it means a bloody, protracted counter-insurgency that will likey end up with each country being a religious fundamentalist dictatorship anyhow.
Or the US can spend 10 years? 50 years? 100 years? Occupying them. Only an idiot and/or a lunatic could support that. Which one are you Bevan?
May 1st, 2008 at 6:52 pm
“I’ve only got one thing to say to you Nome—DIDDUMS.”
It’s going to be didums for everyone in 10-30 years time John. Ever heard of the phrase “cutting off your nose to spite your face”?
May 1st, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Yes Phillip John, its called sabotaging your economy for ideological reasons when the rest of your trading partners sit back and eat your lunch.
Incidentally, how is the homophobia, downs syndrome and drinking issue going?
May 1st, 2008 at 7:23 pm
“fabricating intelligence”
Another communist myth underpinned by the usual Stalinist device of repeating a lie over and over until it becomes the truth. Leftists are liars. They prove it here on this blog and elsewhere everyday. They’re obsessed with power and they’ll endlessly and without conscience lie and cheat and smear in pursuit of that objective. They lied about Iraq just the same as they lied about climate change. Leftists are liars.
May 1st, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Seeing you obviously have the gift of seeing into the future Nomestrodamus perhaps while you are running about there in the future exclaiming in your best private Fraser accent “wir doomed capn mainwaring wir aw doomed” you could find out next weeks lotto numbers for me. I promise if I win first division I will make a small donation to Helens going away present. Perhaps you could also let us know if Mickys tax cuts will occur before the end of the world. ps: Diddums has three Ds not two. For gods sake learn your leaders phrases more accurately in future.
May 1st, 2008 at 8:22 pm
To rip off Robert MacLachlan at Hot Topic http://hot-topic.co.nz/2008/04/30/its-a-gas-gas-gas/#comment-1719
And Idiot/Savant http://stuff.co.nz/blogs/politics/2008/04/30/climate-change-policies-no-longer-sustainable/
And as Idiot/Savant mentioned, the EU is quite interested in what efforts countries are taking to reduce emissions: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,527344,00.html
Hope we don’t export there…
May 1st, 2008 at 8:52 pm
“Hope we don’t export there…”
I make exports about $983M for EU and $6981M for rest of world for three months ending March 2008. Significant yes but not significant enough to bankrupt ourselves over delusions of saving the planet Imports for the same period are$1607 from EU. So who would be cutting whose throat if the pricks in Europe want to play hard ball. Besides they have been shafting us for years so we don’t need to kowtow to the bastards. Look for yourself.
http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/C93A6474-9A25-4C17-9D2A-A015A49BDA2C/23328/omtmar08alltables1.xls
May 1st, 2008 at 9:09 pm
A further thought. If the FTA with China is as flash as Helen is saying it is undoubtably our exports to that country will rise significantly and more than make up for any restrictions placed on us by the so very PC EU and I am sure we won’t have much problem with matching Chinas greenhouse gas emissions policies, specially if much of our increased exports to them are from Solid Energys west coast mines!
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:41 am
Redbaiter:
“Another communist myth underpinned by the usual Stalinist device of repeating a lie over and over until it becomes the truth.”
Yeah sure, you keep telling yourself that.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/8798997/the_man_who_sold_the_war/4
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:02 am
Johnboy:
“you could find out next weeks lotto numbers for me.”
Well obviously you’ve got this climate change thing more figured out than all of the science academies of the world combined Johnboy, so there’s little point in a mere mortal such as myself challenging a superhuman mega-genius like you. As such I’ll have to opt out of this debate now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
# The Science Of Climate Change. Royal Society (May 2001). Retrieved on 2008-01-04.
# ^ Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change. Royal Society (June 2005). Retrieved on 2008-01-04.
# ^ Joint science academies’ statement on growth and responsibility: sustainability, energy efficiency and climate protection. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (May 2007). Retrieved on 2008-01-04.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:06 am
Johnboy:
“you could find out next weeks lotto numbers for me.”
Well obviously you’ve got this climate change thing more figured out than all of the science academies of the world combined Johnboy, so there’s little point in a mere mortal such as myself challenging a superhuman mega-genius like you. As such I’ll have to opt out of this debate now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
Joint science academies’ statement on growth and responsibility: sustainability, energy efficiency and climate protection. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (May 2007). Retrieved on 2008-01-04.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:06 am
Johnboy:
“you could find out next weeks lotto numbers for me.”
Well obviously you’ve got this climate change thing more figured out than all of the science academies of the world combined Johnboy, so there’s little point in a mere mortal such as myself challenging a superhuman mega-genius like you. As such I’ll have to opt out of this debate now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:07 am
Johnboy:
“you could find out next weeks lotto numbers for me.”
Well obviously you’ve got this climate change thing more figured out than all of the science academies of the world combined Johnboy, so there’s little point in a mere mortal such as myself challenging a superhuman mega-genius like you. As such I’ll have to opt out of this debate now.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:18 am
Now let’s see which politicians were honest and bright enough to warn us that man-made global warming was a beat-up.
Helen Clark mouths the slogans her focus groups want to hear, yet presides over one of the poorest environmental performers.
John Key knew it was a hoax, but ‘changed his mind’ when the focus groups said it would cost him votes.
Only Rodney Hide, parliament’s most qualified environmentalist, was both right and honest.
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:51 am
Oh look, it’s John Ansell, another Kiwiblog ‘scientist’ who knows all! Roders was a lecturer, and so was Fitzsimons. I would guess that Rodney is slightly out of touch with the details of that particular field by now anyway. Fitzsimons too, to a lesser extent.
Johnboy, thanks for the table. I do think it would be stupid to ignore Europe in any case, as they are still *much* wealthier on a per capita basis – if their various economies grew ~3%, their purchasing power is still grows a lot more than if China’s grew 6% (I think I am correct in the maths, but I’m sure you get what I mean).
Edit: The policy response in ALL of our key markets (the US will have a national-level response after Bush, and Oz soon too) will have immediate impacts here. The impact will differ based on whether we are seen to be doing something or not, I believe.
That being a bit of a problem with the report –
http://hot-topic.co.nz/2008/05/01/white-lightwhite-heat/#more-381
May 2nd, 2008 at 9:59 am
“Yeah sure, you keep telling yourself that.”
Anyone with the ability to analyse information and deal with it logically could not help but be aware that the Iraq propaganda campaign and the Global Warming propaganda campaign are both just a pack of lies from leftist power seekers. Those two campaigns are the result 1) of the left’s bitter disappointment at the fact that they do not hold power in the USA and their determination to take back what they have lost and 2) their long term objective to destroy capitalism. Leftists are liars. All they want is power, and they will do and say anything in pursuit of that objective.
Both the Anti Iraq war campaign and the Climate Change campaigns are propaganda initiatives that have emanated from global socialist/ communists groups who burn with the desire to unseat the US Republican Party and expand their international power base. Buy into either of these lies, and your supporting a plan that is today the greatest threat to freedom and democracy that the western world faces.
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:30 am
Sorry about those multiple posts.
I kept entering them only to see them disappear.
I thought it was some glitch in my software. We had several power surges a couple of nights ago and of our machines is in the computer hospital with a nervous breakdown.
Then finally a message came up saying it was SPAM and disallowed.
It was finally cleared – but all the messages were cleared. I am still trying to figure out what caused offense.
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Heartland has been even trickier than we thought too: http://www.desmogblog.com/500-scientists-with-documented-doubts-about-the-heartland-institute
But this is about the ETS…
May 2nd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Stephen: care to stop guessing, insulting and diverting and comment on my point?
I’m guessing you lefties (not to mention a few Latter Day Centrists) must be finding it rather hard to justify your dishonest positions right now.
May 2nd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I’m not sure what I said that was too wrong, except for the ‘scientist’ bit. Owen is associated with Heartland, so I thought that above link was relevant.
Care to stop categorising the contents of my brain based on…what exactly?
Yeah, Helen Clark/Labour have been crap on the issue of emissions, caving to pressure to not to implement a simple carbon tax a few years ago, and then pissing around while our emissions increase! I simply just see absolutely no basis for your comment: “Now let’s see which politicians were honest and bright enough to warn us that man-made global warming was a beat-up.” Like people ‘are not listening to Labour’, i’m getting that way about the ‘na na na it’s not happening’ group. Like Heartland and those associated with it (not you, to my knowledge). Anyway if you want to smash the AGW ‘myth’, I would do it at a specialist climate change site like http://www.realclimate.org or http://www.hot-topic.co.nz
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:22 pm
I attended a conference arranged by Heartland and sponsored by about thirty organisations around the world.
If I am associated with Heartland in the sense your lot like to imply then I am associated with one hell of a lot of organisations from round the world.
I have been giving papers at conferences most of my life. I think many of the organisations that organised those conferences would be surprised if I listed myself as their associates.
As I read it, Heartland posted a piece by Avery of the Hudson Institute on their own webpage. Just as all of us post other people’s papers and reports on our sites.
For the record I am not on that list so I don’t see the connection to me at all. To my mind Avery has done something silly. He has written a long list of claims within one statement and then referred to a list of authors who at some or other have supported one or more of those claims. Inevitably some have supported one claim and not other and have asked to be removed from the list.
Avery should have got all their permission or linked the name to each statement.
Silly man. He should have known this would be jumped on and deservedly so.
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Woger Nome:
“It’s going to be diddums for everyone in 10-30 years time John.”
Yeah, perhaps, but not because of “Global Warming”. Redbaiter is right, the wheels are falling off you guys latest hobby horse, but don’t worry, you’ve got the propagandisation of the West so sewn up that you’ll have equivalents of TeQuaeda and the Unabomber numbering in the tens of thousands running around murdering your hated foes, like anyone who makes too much money for example……
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I must be reading too much of Gareth Renowden. No, you definitely aren’t an associate. Thankfully I do know enough not to accuse you of being in their back pocket etc…
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Oh yeah, the conspiracy…
May 2nd, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Don’t know if Owen is still reading this, but would you present at a Heartland-hosted event again based on this display of massively stupid and un-ethical behaviour displayed here (by Avery only?).