The costs of ETS

September 9th, 2008 at 8:14 am by David Farrar

Brian Fallow looks at the costs of an . It all depends on the price of carbon. Treasury is budgeting $23 a tonne, but a last minute change to the scheme has pushed this up to a likely $50 per tonne, and by 2020 it is predicted the cost will be $70 a tonne. For now we will go with $50 a tonne.

  • Inflation to increase by around 0.7% per year for the next two years
  • Retail electricity prices to increase by 20%
  • Petrol prices to increase by 12c/litre
  • Reduce payout to dairy farmers by 50c/kilo (once agriculture fully in the scheme) or 6%

As Fallow notes:

It would be a perverse outcome for the global climate if growth of the pastoral farming sector in New Zealand were hobbled by climate change policy here, only for the demand for dairy products and meat it might have satisfied to be met instead by production elsewhere in the world whose carbon hoof-print (emissions per litre of milk or kilogram of meat) is greater.

So the ETS exempts livestock emissions altogether until 2013 and taxpayers will continue to pick up the great majority of the bill (up to 90 per cent) until at least 2019.

Agriculture is not the only sector where the NZ ETS may simply lead to production transferring off shore, which will result in even worst environmental outcomes, and a drop in income for New Zealand.

Tags: , ,

56 Responses to “The costs of ETS”

  1. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    The ETS is complete bollocks.

    It is designed to appease the uber-religious Climatechagentologosts, and to give Helen some UN kudos while throwing our economic future [further] to the wolves.

    How is it that the very mention of tax cuts creates howls of laughter from the Labour benches about inflationary impact, when this ‘flagship’ policy will be a millstone for every NZ for a generation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    And there is no scientific rationale for singling out ruminants belching as a green house gas any more than there is for singling out termites and wetlands, or even us for the sin of exhaling CO2.
    Actually, is the government going to tax wetlands and mangroves?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    From stuff: New Zealand emits about 0.2 to 0.3 per cent of the world’s greenhouse gases, but its per-capita emissions are high by international standards.

    Our emissions have been increasing while the government has spent 9 years raising taxes… and the solution (duh!) is to raise more tax from everyone and re-distribute it to those who can least afford it. Communism. Green is the new red.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. wreck1080 (3,863 comments) says:

    No, David Parker said electricity would only go up 4%.

    Are you saying he is lying?

    He also said, that labour always keep their promises on the radio this morning. I can think of a very good example where Helen Clark did not keep her promise.

    This is 1984.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Dave Mann (1,208 comments) says:

    Its a matter of absolute amazement to me that the people of new Zealand haven’t physically risen up and at least demonstrated – let alone rioted in the streets – against this madness of ‘Carbon Trading’.

    This is what it must have been like during the Spanish Inquisition, for a rational person looking at the society they live in and it seeming that the patients had been released from the madhouses and put in charge.

    Think about it for a moment. There are people in our government and civil service who are ACTUALLY trying to calculate the VALUE of CARBON in order to levy a tax on our RIGHT to LIFE!

    Look to your right in this comments thread. It is full of Google ads offering a wide range of opportunities for you to participate in this huge rip-off and fleece money off productive businesses and industries which produce our fucking FOOD and everything we as a species need in order to grow and thrive… all based on this insane irrational concept.

    The world has quite literally taken leave of its senses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Alan Wilkinson (1,868 comments) says:

    Fallow is as guilty as the rest of the scientifically and economically illiterate media and politicians who have been pushing the climate change political agenda.

    As Dave Mann says, carbon trading as presently constructed is simply a gigantic rort against the public by the politically powerful. It will achieve absolutely nothing except to reduce our ability to adapt to any climate changes that do occur – and these are completely unpredictable and far more likely to be due to natural causes than to AGW.

    For the last decade global temperatures have been flat or falling. Sea temperatures have fallen. All while carbon emissions have increased rapidly. Most of the big natural factors impacting climate are not understood.

    One thing that is perfectly understood is that every atom of carbon emitted by our animals was first taken out of the atmosphere by those same pastures. Agriculture does not add a single atom of carbon to the atmosphere. It is solely part of a natural carbon cycle. Taxing it is a fraud, pure and simple.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    Dave Mann and others, we have a serious problem with the media running this issue. It would never have got the traction it has if it wasn’t for the media all over the world pushing it. “Centre Right” parties and politicians all over the world have been obliged to just go with the flow. It should have been the Nats in NZ saying what Rodney Hide has been the only one with the guts to say. And look at the USA: they are faced with a choice of Presidential candidates where one is a socialist nutter and the other one who is the “centrist” is also boots-and-all into the whole Carbon Trading /Kyoto/AGW scam. Depressing.

    Alexander Solzhenitsyn commented regarding the power that the media has in the Western world, that our editors and programmers and journalists should be elected just like the politicians.

    Dave Mann, if there were to be riots and demonstrations over this, I suggest that the HQ’s of our various media organs would be the place to start rather than parliament. These people should be invaded by a mob shouting “TELL THE PEOPLE OF NZ THE BLOODY TRUTH, YOU ASSHOLES”!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. dime (9,805 comments) says:

    we are gonna be a laughing stock around the world.. again..

    national need to put some of these costs of billboards! everyone cares about climate change.. like its out fault.. but they wont care as much when they lose a couple of grand a year.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Elect journalists? The media is a public service now, not a business?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Portia (175 comments) says:

    Isn’t the time for arguing the toss about an ETS over?

    I saw Nick Smith on Agenda. He was impressive – he certainly knows his subject – but he made it pretty clear that National and Labour agree on the fundamentals:

    1. We are responsible global citizens and will honour our Kyoto obligations (he dismissed Bernard Hickey’s question that as NZ’s size meant we did not make a significant difference, why go down this road at all. He compared it to saying that we shouldn’t have sent troops to WW I and WW II for the same reason).
    2. There will be an ETS (Europe, Australia and, probably, the US, will each be adopting an ETS and it would be bizarre for NZ to opt for a different system).
    3. The energy industry must be targeted asap.

    The key differences are in the timing (it’s all too rushed) and the detail, most of which I confess, I don’t really understand (I doubt that I’m alone there).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    Philbest – “The truth will become a lie, and a lie will become the truth”. Read that somewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Portia, it would seem that the time to argue about the ETS is over, (people seem keen for National to break promises, I think), but National will certainly be tinkering with the ETS if they get in, so the point would be to argue for refinements around certain areas – more of those details to understand I suppose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. getstaffed (9,186 comments) says:

    Portia – so we should do this beacuse other countries will/may/might?!? (well, actually they’re waiting to see how much of a mess we make before they jump or find a reason to back away..). As Alan observed above – carbon is a basic building block of life. how can that be valued, much less traded in a way that preserves life?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Dave Mann (1,208 comments) says:

    Portia, your comment proves my argument perfectly. Depressingly…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    getstaffed…water?

    edit: Hmm…not really a gas though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Nick Smith has to go. He’s just a dumbass.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Dave Mann, if there were to be riots and demonstrations over this, I suggest that the HQ’s of our various media organs would be the place to start rather than parliament. These people should be invaded by a mob shouting “TELL THE PEOPLE OF NZ THE BLOODY TRUTH, YOU ASSHOLES”!”

    Phil, that’s right of course, but the problem is dickwads like McCain and Key and Nick Smith. They’re not doing their jobs. They’re confused about who they work for. They’re not there to earn the praise of the leftist lickspittle mainstream media. They’re there to act and speak for the people. Senator Inhofe in the US and Rod Hide are doing what needs to be done. Why don’t other politicians do it? Because we let them get away with their bullshit. People have to be far more critical of compromisers like Nick Smith, who has always been a complete disaster in the National Party anyway.

    We need a Sarah Palin to clear the party of Smith and his ilk. Someone prepared to battle with the leftist elitists of the press and electronic media, and to tell them where the hell to go rather than submissively seek their approval most of the time. I’ve had it up to here with the ideological incoherency, the political inarticulateness and the just plain gutlessness of the Nats. Nick Smith in particular.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    BYW If you want evidence as to the scam that is climate change the Godwits have arrived from Alaska 2 weeks early and this is bein touted as evidence of global warming.

    Except the Godwits left Alaska 2 weeks early BECAUSE WINTER HAD ARRIVED EARLY.

    HELLO EARTH TO CLIMATE CHANGE NUTTERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. KevOB (267 comments) says:

    This is not government, it is rule. When no one knows what the truth is and the facts are, the solution is not to tax but oppose action until clarity prevails. Folly we always have, but common sense seems to be ill becoming in politics.

    National have lost my over this; Rodney’s sense will be be rewarded.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Rodney seems a little confused about whether he wants a carbon tax or not though…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Ross Miller (1,688 comments) says:

    I was interested to note what John Key said his Government would do in relation to the ETS …… this is an extract from his speach:

    “In amending the ETS, we will be led by six key principles: balance, fiscal neutrality, trans-Tasman alignment, efficiency rather than exodus, fairness for small and medium businesses, and ensuring adequate flexibility to respond to international developments.

    Let me go over these principles one by one.

    1. The ETS must strike a balance between New Zealand’s environmental and economic interests. It should not attempt to make New Zealand a world leader on climate change.

    2. The ETS should be fiscally neutral rather than providing billions of dollars in windfall gains to the government’s accounts at the expense of businesses and consumers. National does not think it’s responsible for government to use green initiatives to pad the Crown coffers while thinning out Kiwis’ wallets.

    3. The ETS should be as closely aligned as possible to the planned Australian Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, with, where possible, common compliance regimes and tradability. National wants to closely co-operate with Australia as we develop our respective schemes. We note that Australia intends to release draft legislation in December and to introduce a bill to the House by March next year. National thinks it would be foolish to ignore this obvious opportunity to work with Australia, to share information and ideas and to work for mutual benefit as we develop our trading schemes.

    4. The ETS should encourage the use of technologies that improve efficiency and reduce emissions intensity, rather than encourage an exodus of industries and their skilled staff to other countries.

    5. The ETS needs to recognise the importance of small and medium enterprise and not discriminate against them in allocating emission permits.

    6. The ETS should have the flexibility to respond to progress in international negotiations rather than setting a rigid schedule. This way, industry obligations can be kept in line with those of foreign competitors.”

    Can’t fault that too much.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    On cows, if anyone is remotely interested.

    The global warming potential (GWP) of methane is 25 times that of CO2 (note – cows don’t emit CO2). But that’s over a long timescale – 100 years or so. Unfortunately, if you look at the GWP of methane over shorter timescales, say 20 years, it’s actually 72. It does convert to lovely CO2…eventually.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    2. The ETS should be fiscally neutral rather than providing billions of dollars in windfall gains to the government’s accounts at the expense of businesses and consumers. National does not think it’s responsible for government to use green initiatives to pad the Crown coffers while thinning out Kiwis’ wallets.

    So um carbon tax with tax breaks then John?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    stephen
    Cows don’t emit CO2?
    Where did you learn your biology?

    Grass and soil bacteria absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. The soil provides carbon based nutrients to the grass. Cows eat grass.
    Most of the carbon is oxidised in respiration and breathed out into the atmosphere. Most of the rest is turned into meat and milk which we eat and drink. However, cows being ruminants use bacteria in their rumen to break down the cellulose in grass (the stringy bits) and these bacteria emit methane. Just like the bacteria in wetlands (swamps) rice paddies and mangrove swamps.
    If cows are not emmiting CO2 they are dead – just like you and me and the dog – and the plants at night.
    And by the way, methane levels in the atmosphere are currently falling – maybe because India and China are filling in wetlands but actually we don’t have any idea why.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. unaha-closp (1,158 comments) says:

    The global warming potential (GWP) of methane is 25 times that of CO2 (note – cows don’t emit CO2).

    Cows that don’t breath, fancy.

    Agriculture is not the only sector where the NZ ETS may simply lead to production transferring off shore, which will result in even worst environmental outcomes, and a drop in income for New Zealand.

    It provides a cost incentive to every globally tradeable product to be manufactured outside of an ETS system.

    An ETS shares the two main features of all attempts at centralised production control – it costs alot and it has absolutely no chance of ever working.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    My biology is pretty shoddy, yes. But the NOAA seems to disagree about the amount of methane around, but don’t let them fool you. If you feel like arguing the ‘timescales’ point, i’m sure Renowden would be happy to indulge you. Heck, he even mentions you by name there!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    er that was for Owen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    Dave Mann: “The world has quite literally taken leave of its senses.”

    I’m always a bit suspicious of people who’re convinced that everyone else in the world have gone mad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    I heard puller Parker on the shed radio this morning, said to the wife, listen to this commie tosser. This bastard and his ilk should be hung for treason. He was busy telling us that this would only cost the average family $3000 a year, lying fuck. This whole con is about the advancement of socialism if not total communism and the promotion of a one world government, this is driven by powerful overseas interests. Dear Leader and the Liarbore traitors are not trying to save the world they are playing to a set agenda and thus the desperate attempts to pass this evil bill before a change in government. No doubt the Dear Leader will be held in high reguard if she pulls this one off and will enjoy the blessings of some truly evil people. Many politicians, National included have said this bill must go through because NZ must be seen to be “doing something” because our exports are at risk, sounds to me very much like extortion. Not only will this cost us in cash terms it will also cost us alot of our freedoms as there are now many more nasty controls comming into play once this bill goes through, will highlight a few later.

    If I was in power I could fix this so called problem overnight. Stop selling our coal!!! that alone would save the world millions of tons in carbon emmissions but this won’t happen. WHY,WHY,WHY because it’s not about the enviroment stupid it’s about tax and more important CONTROL.

    This tax is touted as an incentive to lower our emmissions, bullshit, puller Parker has stated that the government will subsidise some of these tax costs to people who’s incomes only go up to $100,000, sort of defeats the whole purpose of the bill, doesn’t it, when at $60,000 you are a rich prick in this country. It sounds a lot like wealth redistribution to me ( communism ), once again industry and those who generate real wealth will pay dearly. Whats the point of trying to change peoples habbits when you incourage the same habbits by returning some of the income given in carbon tax. To me the whole fucking thing stinks and it’s not the carbon emmissions that smell it’s the bullshit served up to the peasants.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. KevOB (267 comments) says:

    I need Key and Nick Smith to recant: acknowledge that AGW is folly and promise to repeal any Labour passed ETS laws ,not platitudinous policy waffle, before my vote is restored to them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    You want them to flip flop for the nth time?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Dave Mann (1,208 comments) says:

    Andrew W, actually that’s a very sharp point you made, and it made me sit up for a minute! hahaha… nice one… but I’m not saying that everyone else in the world has gone mad (except me). What I am saying is that mainstream PC thinking has been captured by a strain of madness (ie carbon bullshit and AGW paranoia). Thankfully (for my own mental health) I am not alone in this view and I have read many comments on this and other blogs which tend to indicate to me that this mad world view is not shared by everybody without question.

    As previously, I liken the political climate now to what it must have been like during the Spanish Inquisition, when the general majority probably just went along with the bullshit for the sake of a quiet life, whereas rational minds were horrified at the madness all around them in the name of a god that doesn’t exist. Same would probably have applied to Nazi Germany and Stalin’s USSR.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Dave, 8 million demerits for frivolous Spanish Inquisition/Naziism/Communism comparisons. Al Gore is not going to come along and smite you with his Fearful Climate Model of Doom for voicing opposition to aspects of this issue!

    edit: yes people will castigate you being so ‘horrible’ as to deny such issues, but there are nutters everywhere, for everything you can think of.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Dave Mann (1,208 comments) says:

    No, Stephen, Al Gore is not going to come along and smite me, is he? He doen’t need to smite anybody because he has set up a whole scam operation to scoop hundreds of millions of dollars (maybe billions?) off everybody who takes part in the modern technological way of life and its economy. He would be stupid to try smiting anybody when he is minting it off the sheeple’s gullibility. Nope. He has control of your fucking minds, your politicians and your school children, so why would he need to smite you? The point of smiting is to gain control through fear. This bastard and his friends have already got all control they want.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Everyone’s mad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Andrew W (1,629 comments) says:

    Well Dave, I’m also suspicious of people who believe in worldwide conspiracies that only they, and a few like minded individuals, are clever enough to see through.
    Especially when those individuals have political motivations to believe in the existence of a conspiracy, but no proof for it.

    You know the sort: “The moon landings were a hoax”, “9/11 was a US government plot”, those sorts of people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    Stephen
    I am not arguing the timescale point – indeed it is totally irrelevant. Ruminants and wetlands and termites etc have been around for millions of years and their methane is part of the natural carbon cycle. Methane concentrations rise and fall and are currently falling.
    So what? The cows are no more causing AGW than the forests and termites and wetlands.

    Renowden is hardly an authority on anything about climate in spite of his claims to super knowledge.
    the fact is he wrote a book “Hot Topic” some time ago and now has an obvious vested interest in keeping the AGW alarmism alive because otherwise no more book sales.
    Funny how people with an obvious self interest accuse everyone else of being in someone’s pay.

    The people in NIWA get more from the energy and oil companies than I do by a long shot. The government pays their wages and the governments coffers are filled by a good dollop of taxes and dividends from energy and oil companies.
    On the other hand I pay the government heaps of taxes and have never received anything from an oil company (except petrol and other benefits) in my life.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Owen McShane (1,226 comments) says:

    The good old law of unintended consequences again.

    The ETS will immediately start costing our rural economy dearly and soon will specially impact on ruminant farmers.

    Sheep and cattle-beasts and deer are also ruminants.
    While Dairy farming is doing well sheep, deer and beef farmers are struggling by comparison.
    So when costs go up across the board more sheep, deer and beef farmers will convert to dairy.

    The Dairy farmers are despised because they are making money and are supposedly guilty of dirty dairying – but the result of the ETS will be to increase the number of dairy cows and dairy farmers.

    So it goes!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Renowden tends to like, point to scientific articles, like.

    The ETS will immediately start costing our rural economy dearly

    You have a different version of ‘immediately’ to the rest of us, evidently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. baxter (893 comments) says:

    I would like to know WHO decided or proposed that Livestock Emissions but only emissions from NZ Livestock would be taxible.
    If NZ has to have an Emissions Taxation Scam in order to sell our products overseas does that mean we will no longer receive products from China, India, and the USA because they don’t have an Emissions Taxation Scam. If so why don’t we skip our scheme and deal exclusively with the countries outside the Scam.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    “sheep, deer and beef farmers will convert to dairy.”

    Why weren’t they doing that anyway, out of curiosity?

    “So what? The cows are no more causing AGW than the forests and termites and wetlands. ”

    I suppose you’re going to say that ‘volcanoes emit GHGs, so why shouldn’t we?’ now…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Alan Wilkinson (1,868 comments) says:

    Stephen, CO2 is a much stronger “greenhouse” gas than methane. Have you ever looked at an infrared absorption spectrum? The only reason it has a lesser effect at the moment is that the atmosphere is relatively saturated wth CO2 and unsaturated with methane – law of diminishing returns. So farmers are getting slugged because they haven’t polluted enough.

    The lifetime of methane in the atmosphere before conversion to CO2 is unknown. Just recently it has been shown that oceans emit catalysts for the conversion. NZ is surrounded by oceans. Most likely our methane is relatively short-lived. Moreover the level of methane in the atmosphere has been flat for the last decade (just like the temperature). No-one knows why.

    Portia, anyone who thinks or says the science of global warming is settled simply doesn’t know what they are talking about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. John Ansell (874 comments) says:

    The political attractiveness of this scam could be sorted out with one mock climate change invoice to every household.

    That would cause a massive backlash – and National’s ‘principles’ would be instantly reassessed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Though you’d have to assume that teh market would fail to incentivise any changes what so ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Alan Wilkinson, i’d value some sort of (proper) reference for any of the stuff you say there, seeing as it goes against all conventional wisdom, not to mention Wikipedia (wikipedia!)

    Certainly a point about National’s principles there though John. Spineless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Alan Wilkinson (1,868 comments) says:

    Stephen, conventional wisdom is totally irrelevant in science.

    Regarding CO2/Methane IR absorption, I spent 5 years as a post-graduate organic chemist in which IR absorption spectra were a key diagnostic tool and the CO deep absorption bands relative to the weak CH bands were an every day observation. You will easily confirm this if you care to search, even probably in Wikipedia.

    Regarding the absurd economics of ETS, read the contributions of Indur Goklany here:
    http://www.cato-unbound.org/archives/august-2008-keeping-our-cool-what-to-do-about-global-warming/

    In fact, read all of the contributions from both sides in that debate and you will see that Goklany is by far the most compelling.

    For unbiassed global temperature records see any of the UAH or RSS lower troposphere satellite records, eg
    here: http://www.ssmi.com/msu/msu_data_description.html#figures
    or here: http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm#satellite-temps

    For why the Hansen/GISS/NASA/Hadley surface temperature estimates are unreliable, see the years of work by Steve McIntyre here: http://www.climateaudit.org/ (warning, some is highly technical)

    For destruction of methane by ocean emissions, see:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080625140656.htm

    For extensive links and comentary on all aspects and sides of the debate, see http://www.climatedebatedaily.com.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Alan Wilkinson (1,868 comments) says:

    Stephen, I just posted an extensive set of links which this website has seen fit to discard.

    I’m not going to waste my time recomposing it so I will just refer you to http://www.climatedebatedaily.com which contains links to almost everything I have mentioned.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    This was an interesting exercise. Well yes I do know enough about science to know that ‘conventional wisdom’ should not hold any authority, but i’m sure you see my point – sort of like Andrew W’s point about ‘being suspicious’ earlier in the thread.

    Good old wikipedia – the article there seems to take into account “the absorption of infrared radiation by a given species”. Seems methane is worse.

    Don’t know what the point of ”unbiassed” is (ignorance on my part), but:
    The Roy Spencer graph shows: long term warming
    RSS v3.1 finds a trend of +0.169 °C/decade.
    UAH analysis finds +0.130 °C/decade.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

    I’m not a technical guy, but see above.

    Seems to me you ignored the bit in the ocean article “The composition of the atmosphere is in fine balance here- it will only take a small increase in nitrogen oxides from fossil fuel combustion, carried here from Europe, West Africa or North America on the trade winds, to tip the balance from a sink to a source of ozone”. Seems to me that all GHG levels are rising too?

    All I saw on the right side of that website were thinktanks, blogs, newspapers (ok, but not the best) and ‘activists’. On the left side were plenty of newspapers, but also national science bodies, and the odd journal article. I’d prefer to get my stuff from the latter, really.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    The links turn up eventually. My reply has been posted too, but DPF just has to moderate it to make sure it isn’t spam.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Alan Wilkinson (1,868 comments) says:

    Stephen, you are cherry-picking on the ocean article. The quibble you selected referred only to the Northern Atlantic. The crunch conclusion was:

    “This study provides a sharp reminder that to understand how the atmosphere really works, measurement and experiment are irreplaceable. The production of iodine and bromine mid-ocean implies that destruction of ozone over the oceans could be global”.

    I t would be extraordinary if it were not. As I said the science is very far from being settled. The happy consensus of climate modellers who share the same assumptions and reach the same conclusions is completely meaningless as a source of confidence when the underlying science in so many areas is as yet quite unknown.

    Likewise, you cherry pick on the temperature record. Yes, there has been an increase in temperatures since reliable satellite records began in 1979. But it is not uniform as you imply. Temperature increase/decrease appears to have reversed direction roughly every 30 years since about 1910 (see the 1850-2007 chart on Spencer’s link above). The current direction is flat or downwards. (See the UAH satellite record on the same page or the RSS link.)

    The GWP calculations in the Wikipedia page you reference are simply invalid as per these critical admissions:

    “The GWP value depends on how the gas concentration decays over time in the atmosphere. This is often not precisely known and hence the values should not be considered exact.”

    “While the absorption of infrared radiation by many greenhouse gases varies linearly with their abundance, a few important ones display non-linear behaviour for current and likely future abundances (e.g., CO2, CH4, and N2O). For those gases, the relative radiative forcing will depend upon abundance and hence upon the future scenario adopted.”

    In other words: we don’t have a clue, but we have to assume something.

    The facts are as I stated. CO2 is a much more powerful IR absorbant than CH4 but since there is much more of it in the atmosphere its impact is diluted as the frequencies it absorbs are substantially already saturated.

    Finally, yes, there is a great deal of rubbish published on both sides of the debate which is where I started in this thread. Mainstream journalists don’t have a clue about science and anything they write should be taken with a small mountain of salt and scepticism. And then we have politicians, who know even less.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Hmm, well there’s stuff in there that I don’t understand, and has more than likely been done to death by others. Obviously i’m the wrong person to try and ‘win’ an argument against when I have zero formal training, let alone influence. If I wanted to pick a fight with someone, i’d go to hot-topic.co.nz (seeing as RealClimate is a bit crowded, plus it’s specifically an NZ site) Any ‘wins’ would give you much credit, as opposed to baffling one kiwiblogger at a time, if you have the time.

    On ‘cherry picking’, what I thought I was doing was providing quotes that summed up the point of the article. Seems things are in the balance there, and they did not hazard a numerical estimate of the implications of their work, I think. Still, GHG levels are rising, no? Same with ‘cherry picking the temperature record’ – I went to where you told me, and those that I gave are the overall results.

    Has this Spencer guy published anything on these matters? All I see on every graph everywhere is long term warming. I see people saying ‘it’s the sun’ but then see stuff like that, I see hundreds of “plant and animal species being affected as a result of current warming…observed changes are heavily biased in the directions predicted from global warming”.

    Finally, yes, there is a great deal of rubbish published on both sides of the debate

    Would seem to me “published” is the key word, particulary with relevance to journal articles.

    Rising GHG levels = rising temperature, even when external factors are taken into account.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Alan Wilkinson (1,868 comments) says:

    Spencer has published a lot including some important recent stuff on cloud impacts on climate which if it stands up will have a major impact on climate models.

    Of course there has been long-term warming. The little ice age ended during the first half of last century through natural causes we don’t understand at all. But the record is far from uniform, simple or understood. And the current trend for the last decade is not upward, even though there have been huge CO2 emissions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    He does sound like something to ponder on the fringes, but not that much…

    “Roy does have a handful of peer-reviewed publications, some of which have quite decent and interesting results in them. However, the thing you have to understand is that what he gets through peer-review is far less threatening to the mainstream picture of anthropogenic global warming than you’d think from the spin he puts on it in press releases, presentations and the blogosphere.”

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/

    Temp/GHG increase isn’t a linear thing as far as I understand. Anyhoo.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Alan Wilkinson (1,868 comments) says:

    Stephen, if you only read realclimate you will only know what the most fanatical AGW lobbyists want you to know because it is strictly a PR website run by the Hansen/Schmidt/GISS modelers clique – whose “peer-review” consists of reviewing each other’s papers, who are only interested in reaching one conclusion and are hell-bent on diminishing every challenge to it.

    Anything they write should be regarded only as a starting point for investigation rather than the end of it.

    Spencer, on the other hand, like Pielke Snr & Jnr, are skeptical but balanced scientists. They measure and investigate rather than assuming “the science is settled” as the modellers always claim – as of course they must: to do otherwise is to pull the rug out from under their models and their results.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    I don’t only read realclimate, no way. Like we said, there are sources that are more credible than others, and that site (run by practising, publishing climate scientists) is up there. The latest one by Mann, which I think gets a mention on Climate Audit, was done by several scientists not on the site. Also I believe editors choose who does peer-review, not so much a case of asking for volunteers.

    ““the science is settled” – heh, depends on what part of the science you’re talking about, there is an awful lot, some more settled than others. One often hears that you would have to re-write the laws of quantum physics to disprove the Greenhouse Effect, for instance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.