Nick Smith on Emissions
July 26th, 2009 at 2:54 pm by David FarrarGuyon Espiner interviews Nick Smith on Q&A this morning. I thought it was a good performance from Nick:
GUYON What about here in New Zealand. What sort of climate effects are we going to see here and by when if we don’t get this under control?
NICK Well if we take the sort of estimates that have been made by NIWA scientists, you know we’re looking sea level rises over the course of the century of about .6 of a metre, we’re looking at temperature rises of about two degrees.
Great to have a politician not exagerrate the impacts. Nick correctly quoted the IPCC consensus of around 60 cm increase over 100 years. You get all sorts of hysterical nonsense about eight metre increases from some politicians.
NICK Well the government’s commissioned this report from Infometrics and NZEIR to try and get a feel for what those numbers would be if we went for the target that Greenpeace is promoting of minus 40, that indicates a cost of about you know 15 billion dollars per year at 2020, you know that’s more than the entire expense of our health system,
This is what the Green Party is campaigning for. To spend more money on this, than we do on Vote Health. And that is $15 billion a year – not one off.
The report from NZIER is here – NZIER Infometrics Report 26 July 2009.
Their model basically says that the cost would be $3,000 per person per year for a 40% reduction. That is $60 a week.
NICK Yeah I do, I think that argument is incontrovertible, you know how can we, emitting about 17 tonne a year, per New Zealander, say to the Bangladeshi who’s doing a tonne a year, hey guys you’ve gotta get your emissions down because we’ve got a global problem. But the other part we have to understand is this, even if every one of the developed countries signs up to a zero target which is totally unrealistic, and you see the continued growth in emissions from China, India, Brazil, those countries, we are not going to beat this problem, you know the projections are that you’d get emissions up to sort of 650 parts per million, even with zero from the developed world, and so that really shows how important it is in Copenhagen that we get the developing countries to come on board.
This is key. An agreement must include China, India and Brazil.
NICK I want to reassure you, that in the government making its decision both on the ETS and the 2020 target, that needs to be at the front of our mind. You know if we look at the new bill that’s in the United States Congress, they’ve specifically made provision there for tariffs against countries that don’t take climate change seriously, and so what the sort of balance that the government’s going to have to strike here, is one that has us not getting out too far of the pack. What that economic report shows if you get too far out, the costs really escalate.
GUYON So we could face a trade ban, so your 15 billion dollars pales into nothing if we are getting our goods boycotted by an international trading ban.
NICK Absolutely, and that’s why I say to farmers in the agricultural sector, look guys climate change has gotta be taken seriously, not only is it an environmental risk, it is a trade risk, and that’s where New Zealand needs to find this balance, recognise that we’ve got a tough job, but saying that look too far ahead, costs get too high, too far behind and the costs get ugly as well.
It is a balance. If we do nothing we will get hammered. If we try to be the most pure country in the world we will just get a lot poorer and possibly outsource our emissions to China.
Related posts:
- Treasury on emissions target
- What should be NZ’s 2020 emissions target
- Rating the Emissions Targets
- Barry Brill on caron emissions
July 26th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
I quake in anticipation of the first ‘hot air’ joke.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 3:00 pm
The trade ban threat is crap. No-one is going to ban trade with China and there is no way they are going to commit to any reductions in the near future. Neither is India.
Anyone want to put their money where their mouth is and take a bet on that?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Anyone want to put their money where their mouth is and take a bet on that?
Nope, I am investing in a stilt factory.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
“..Great to have a politician not exagerrate the impacts. Nick correctly quoted the IPCC consensus of around 60 cm increase over 100 years. You get all sorts of hysterical nonsense about eight metre increases from some politicians…”
um..!..the ipcc figures are very conservative..and have been since superseded..
(details of which have been previously posted here..
(sigh..!..this is groundhog day..you just say the same bullshit over and over..
..as if repitition makes it so..
it dosen’t..eh..?
..and those 8 metre predictions you scoff at..?
..i hope to fuck you’re right..eh..?
“..An agreement must include China, India and Brazil..”
f.y.i..china is going gangbusters developing new green/clean technologies..
..’cos they know that who does that..
..is the next economic empire..
..and india..?..(see above..and respective footprints..from us and them..)
..and brazil..?..oh..!..where the rainforests are being cleared to either make unsustainable ‘alternative-fuels’..?
..or being cleared to grow feed to feed to animals for the rich/most-polluting to eat..?
fuck..dpf..your level of denial..(presuming you aren’t just spinning for h.q)..is somewhat gobsmacking..
tho’ smith is correct when he puts the (who..?..us..?..) farmers on notice..
..and yes..do nothing..at the deniers want/argue for..
..and our goods will be boycotted..
..and hey..!..guess what..?
..these imperatives are only going to get stronger/more imperative..
eh..?..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
“china is going gangbusters developing new green/clean technologies ’cos they know that who does that is the next economic empire”
Nope, they know that the muggins countries will have strangled their own industries in red tape, taxes and greenie fads so China will have no competition and a captive market while it pollutes to its heart’s content.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
philu talks to himself:
“(sigh..!..this is groundhog day..you just say the same bullshit over and over..
..as if repitition (sick)makes it so..”
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
you would appear to have a very low opinion on the ‘intelligence’of the chinese people/government..eh..?
..you would be certain to someday rue that..eh..?
i linked to a piece a few days ago detailing how protectionist/how much financial support china is givingthesechanges they know must come..
..it is the west who will be left flat-footed..
..(and that was the theme of the piece..
..that the chinese were winning that race..
..it’s on whoar..if you disbelieve..just key ‘china’ into the search engine..eh..?..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
After reading Air Con, I am in no doubt that there isn’t anthropogenic (human caused) warming.
This whole carbon credit thing is 1) going to bankrupt the world and 2) make a few people very, very rich.
I’m really worried about Copenhagen and what’s going to happen to the world because of this scam.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
“you would appear to have a very low opinion on the ‘intelligence’of the chinese people/government”
The reverse. They are far too smart to sign up to b.s. Instead they will take advantage of the other idiots who do.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
no adolph..i have to counter ‘the same bullshit..over and over’..
..are you still a denialist..?
..are you keeping a list on the number of things i have been ‘right’ on..?
..(remember when you used to defend the iraq war ‘intelligence’..and bushs’ economicperformance..?..eh..?
..aahh!!..halcyon days..eh..?
..and hey..!..i am still kinda sad for you..that you ‘missed’ the sixties/seventies..
..as you did..
..eh..?..
i mean..everyone did dope then..
..it was only the terminally strange..and terminally straight..who didn’t..
..they were the ‘weird’ minority..
..remember..?
..it must have been very confusing/disorienting for you..those times..eh..?
..mr jones..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
adolf..
“..repitition (sick”(sic)..
..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 3:42 pm
The world has gone nuts.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 3:47 pm
The world has gone nuts.
Never a dull moment though.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Give idiots money and they will find new ways to spend it.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
If our trade partners said “follow our religion or we’ll ban your trade”, that’s blackmail.
We’re saving them the trouble of blackmailing us by leaping onto our swords in the fear that they might.
Beyond ridiculous.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
“It is a balance. If we do nothing we will get hammered.”
True sustainability is a good goal to aim for, when it comes down to it, it is simply not crapping in your own nest.
Vote:The problem is, when this sort of stuff gets so politicized, true sustainability practice is lost and replaced by “politically correct” sustainability practice and the whole thing becomes a political exercise instead of environmental.
I have tried to point this out to the greens, but they are too blinkered and drooling at the mouth over the prospect of carbon trading, and I guess the resultant wealth redistribution which they seem quite keen on thank-you very much.
The environment will not win out of this.
July 26th, 2009 at 4:07 pm
adc, very well put.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Shunda Barunda, the only definition of “sustainability” that makes any sense is sustainability of our human population.
But, hilariously, that is exactly what most greenies don’t want to sustain.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Shunda Barunda, the only definition of “sustainability” that makes any sense is sustainability of our human population.
Our future is off the planet.
Which is where most of you lot seem to be already.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 4:13 pm
Fletch: “I am in no doubt that there isn’t anthropogenic (human caused) warming.”
Really? How can you be so sure? We must be warming things to some extent. I am burning a fire at the moment. So are you suggesting what warming we cause (eg burning stuff, possible greenhouse effect) is balanced by what cooling we cause (air pollution blocking sunlight, ??).
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 4:18 pm
Alan is right, population doesn’t seem to be getting the attention it should. Projections are from 2000-2050 the population will grow from 6b to 9b. Even trying to cap pollution at current levels is a huge ask. Fuel, food, water, land, we have enough problems without climate change.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
“We’re saving them the trouble of blackmailing us by leaping onto our swords in the fear that they might.
Beyond ridiculous.”
That approach would be.
Vote:There is no doubt that we need to care for the environment better than in the past, and develop true sustainable industry, but we need to do it for the right reasons not under threats from idealistic politicians from other nations.
I think it makes sense to look at ways of farming that are better for the environment than at present, but when has forcing an ideology on people ever worked?
Steady change is required, 40% is radical, unattainable nonsense.
July 26th, 2009 at 4:22 pm
Cerium, it is blocked by what happens every day in the tropics.
A clear cool morning heats up and clouds over by mid to late morning as the sun’s heat causes evaporation of sea water. The clouds then shield the earth by reflecting the sun’s heat back into space while continuing to build during the day culminating in thunderstorms and a purging of atmospheric water in the late afternoon.
The impact of CO2 is moderated by this effect as the warming it produces generates more clouds and compensating cooling.
Leaving the planet with dominating natural causes of climate change.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
“i mean..everyone did dope then..”
Speak for yourself and don’t generalise, you unashamed bludger and loser.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Nick SMITH didn’t explain to my satisfaction why NZ Farmers alone in the world should pay emission taxes, though he did acknowledge that they were the only farmers to be penalised. American feedlot beef farmers for instance produce 18 million metric tons of manure per Annum which they spend most of their time standing in. They won’t be penalised.
Vote:The effect on inflation of a 10% increase on energy will result in increased inflation leading to increased wage demands, automatic benefit and pension increases, more inflation. It all seems so crazy, last month in my area the average temperature was 2 degrees below normal. Nicks projection is for a 2% average increase over 100 years, maybe back to normal by then eh.
July 26th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
This is actually the one of the most controversial areas of global warming theory for both sides of the arguement. In the interest of informed debate I will elaborate: Depending on the cloud height, clouds will either
(A) Reduce global warming effects as their dominant effect will be to prevent radiation from reaching earth, or
(B) Increase global warming as their dominant effect will be to prevent radiation of heat into space.
The controversy lies in that whether A or B dominates is dependent on the height of the clouds produced, which is not known with certainty. Indeed it tends be guessed in many models.
The more you know
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:05 pm
“The controversy lies in that whether A or B dominates is dependent on the height of the clouds produced, which is not known with certainty. Indeed it tends be guessed in many models.”
Which reveals the “science is settled” mantra as complete and utter codswollop.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:10 pm
paradigm, there have been a number of recent papers all indicating that A is correct.
Moreover, as was pointed out to the IPCC by one of the reviewers of the (very inadequate) cloud section but then ignored by the political elite that drafted the final copy, clouds block incoming radiation from heating the earth’s surface which has a huge heat capacity but they only block outgoing radiation from cooling the earth’s atmosphere which has a very small heat capacity.
Really, it’s a no-brainer. Except that all the “climate models” adopt (B).
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Have any scientists claimed that “the science is settled”?
Non-scientists seem to “know enough” to have more extreme views either way.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:13 pm
This is a hard one… If its to happen … It has to be lead from America first… for the rest of the world to get involved… America has starting the process of tariffs. To start that process, first with developed countries like New Zealand that depend on exports, to take lowering their greenhouse emissions seriously. So developing countries like China India etc will come on board later on down the track. When they see the evidence that the developed counties are doing their bit. Otherwise why should they.. Its a bit like the Nuclear Boom scenario when America had theirs, wanted everyone else not to. You can’t have it both ways unless you prove otherwise. So its really up to the developing counties to prove they are serious about lowing greenhouse emissions first before the undeveloped counties follow. And so far all the developing counties have done is talk. As Nick Smith said… “hey guys you’ve gotta get your emissions down because we’ve got a global problem”… And that starts with us setting the exsample.. If we do nothing the world gets hammered.. Us along with it.. No matter which way you look at it.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:16 pm
RKBee, examine your assumptions.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
Their model basically says that the cost would be $3,000 per person per year for a 40% reduction. That is $60 a week.
…If the international carbon price is a worst case scenario, forestry doesn’t respond to that price, no technologies change in the next 10 years and there is no global system to manage carbon trading.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Nick Smith needs a rocket up his arse. Backster is right, Smith has failed to explain to the people of NZ why we are the only country signed up for agriculture emissions. My guess it is because the crooks and scam artists in our government have to tax a large part of the economy that actually earns the wealth of country. But if Smith really believes his own crap why doesn’t he go and tell the Indians to start paying taxes on their animal emissions, after all they have far higher stock numbers then NZ. I wonder how long he would last before he was shown the door
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Air pollution (particles) can also block the sun so it either compensates for warming (if it exists) or else it can have a cooling effect. Reducing air pollution can cause more warming.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Agriculture and tourism are NZ’s two major export income earners. If we continue to whittle away the natural capital (ie ecosystems) which support them we are eventually going to end up impoverished.
Vote:Carbon is an important resource, it is more valuable in the ground than in the air.
July 26th, 2009 at 6:08 pm
“..side show bob (1589) Vote: Add rating 1 Subtract rating 1 Says:
July 26th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
Nick Smith needs a rocket up his arse. Backster is right, Smith has failed to explain to the people of NZ why we are the only country signed up for agriculture emissions. My guess it is because the crooks and scam artists in our government have to tax a large part of the economy that actually earns the wealth of country…”
it would be because agricultural emissiions make such a high percentage of our overall emmissions..
..much more than most other countries..
..plus..other countries will throw up trade barriers..if we don’t..
..b.t.w..haven’t you denialists ‘got it’ yet..?
..it’s game over..eh..?
..and you lost..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
“Agriculture and tourism are NZ’s two major export income earners. If we continue to whittle away the natural capital (ie ecosystems) which support them we are eventually going to end up impoverished.”
There is no evidence whatever that we are destroying ecosystems that support our agriculture and tourism. However, the stupid climate policies advocated by Greenpeace would seriously harm both.
Cerium, aerosols are another big unknown hole in the climate models. Aerosols have also been blamed for arctic warming so like clouds there is no agreement even on which direction their effect acts let alone its magnitude.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
We had a perfectly good ETS that the present govt canned. NZ needs to have something viable in place so we don’t look like fools at the Copenhagen Conference later in the year: ie we need to decide on a target and then work out how to achieve it.
Q+A today was nothing but a National Party love-in. A former National Cabinet Minister commenting on a current Cabinet Minister’s approach plus the green party who are cosying up to National. Were David Parker and Charles Chauvel otherwise engaged?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Well, you may not believe me, but what about the 31,000 scientists (including 9000 with PhDs) who signed a petition in 2008 denying that man is responsible for global warming?
Of all the CO2 emissions into the atmosphere every year, only 3.4% is caused by humans. The rest is caused by forests, volcanoes and oceans.
The truth is, you are being conned. We all are. Actually water vapour causes more of a so-called greenhouse effect than CO2, but you can’t tax that, so, yeh……
I’m really worried about what’s going to happen in Copenhagen this December. Trillions of dollars down the toilet for no reason at all. If only there were some way to stop these fools.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
“we need to decide on a target and then work out how to achieve it”
Why? No-one else has. They are all full of political b.s. with no action except shovelling taxpayers’ and consumers’ money into the pockets of their mates and supporters.
Global CO2 levels continue to increase rapidly. Fortunately neither global temperature nor sea levels do – both have leveled off.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:02 pm
“plus…….other countries will throw up trade barriers if we don’t”
Pull the other one phil, what world do you live in? A lot of them do already but hay if you like getting properly screwed then go ahead and sign up to this fucking con. Besides trade barriers will mean piss all to a world getting hungrier everyday. This is simply a system transferring wealth from rich countries to poorer countries. In other words it’s socialism bordering on communism and advancing the cause for the NWO trying to bullshit it’s way to power on the back of the AGW con.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:07 pm
And the US Govt alone has spent US$79 billion on the climate change industry:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
Meanwhile, the principal global surface temperature database, the UK HadCrut, refuses to release both the raw data and the methods used to modify it for independent audit:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/25/more-on-hadleys-hiding-behind-the-curtain/
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
I figured phool would love China and their pseudo-environmentalism.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:32 pm
Let’s have a show of hands here from those who voted ACT last year on the back of its “scrap the ETS policy?” ACT pointed out then that it would cost $3,000 per person and this is shown to be true.
It seems most here are against any form of ETS so did you put the pen in the right slot last year or “just vote National, cos that’s what we’ve always done”?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
So in other words, Obama and Pelosi want us to bend over and take it, so that’s what Nick Smith wants us to do.
The man doesn’t have enough stalkers.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 7:49 pm
Hey Phil – where is the EVIDENCE?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Well said Gooner.
Idiotic ideology from the socialists. I mean the IPCC stuff has been discredited now for about 18 months or more and these people still take it as gospel. Plenty of rebuttal evidence about but like a lot of stuff the zealots are afraid to look at both sides of the issue and educate themselves properly. Called a one track mind. A bit like watching Holmes on Q+A today. Justifying his failure by attacking personally the people he interviewed. I digress.
Greens rubbish Climate Change Minister
Sunday, 26, Jul, 2009 5:05PM
The Green Party is rubbishing claims big bucks need to be spent to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
The Climate Change Minister has ruled out a 40 percent cut by 2020, saying the Greenpeace initiative is too expensive.
Nick Smith told TVNZ’s Q&A programme a New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report has shown a reduction that big would cost around $15 billion annually.
Green MP Jeanette Fitzsimons says NZIER reports always start from the premise that everyone is optimally efficient in terms of energy, transport fuels and farming. She says if everyone drove a vehicle that was as fuel efficient as hers, emissions could be cut by 50 percent.
Ms Fitzsimons says New Zealand needs to start from the ground and plot the measures it is going to take to tackle climate change. She says there have to be a lot of complementary measures like energy efficiency and better public transport.
Ms Fitzsimons says she is amazed the Government is only looking at a macroeconomics view of climate change.
Now for my family of two adults and four kids that represents $180.00 per week extra that I will have to find if we go with Smiths numbers of $30 per person per week. Given that we currently are 31% behind Aussie in the wages stakes and still going backwards and our incumbent socialists are refusing to make the necessary changes to improve that in less than 10 years(Bill English said this on Friday) then I’d have to say most families are stuffed. I think we should all just go to Aussie and boot out their bluggers, greenies and lefties and send them here.
Vote:Where is this aspirational future that was bandied about before the elections last year? eh c’mon you socialist Nats. tell us all about the bright prospects for the future this year.
July 26th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
maybe this is china’s attempt at a ‘warm’ war.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Well said Viking2, I have no problem with environmentally sound practices and some of the “real green” incentives make sense as they can save money and help the bottom line. But this country is infested with greedy control freak politicians only to willing to wave the big stick around and make lots of threatening sounds. They really don’t give a rat’s shit about the environment, it’s about control and taxation.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Viking, that is precisely it. Most families in this country are hocked up to their eyeballs in debt – doesn’t Smith and the Nats know that? They don’t have $30 per person, per household. The stats on TV tonight showed by the year 2020 the average wage is only $46K, then reduced to $43K under this ETS. Christ, mortgagee sales are up 200% from last year and 57% of the country earn under $30K. We are approaching this all from the wrong angle. We urgently need to get our wages up and fast just so we can afford a slimmed down ETS. What Smith and the Nats are proposing is unaffordable. I can just see the system now, rebates here, redistributions there. Is it any wonder we buy investment properties and claim back all our expenses to reduce our tax liability? This is getting beyond a joke really.
Personally I shouldn’t care because I earn quite good money and will do going forward. But for the very large majority in this country – the 60% who earn under $30K – they will struggle big time, all to pay for Russian coal factories. Wake up people. All the big petrol companies are packing up shop here. We’ve got our main source of income in trouble (overheated farm prices and dwindling commodity prices) and we all think Viking should pay $10K because we emit .02 of the world’s CO2?
Who’s steering this ship? It’s an utter disgrace.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
WANKERS, THE LOT OF THEM.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
If ever reason needs to be put into the argument it is now.This is such shit,if the farmers of fonterra are lodged with this TAX, because thats all it is, then it wll fail.
What will it achieve? nothing,TOTALLY NOTHING.
We could reduce by 100 percent and it will achieve Nothing,TOTALLY NOTHING.
So why?
Now the latest study which has been PEER reviewed by scientists say that Climate change has had little if anything to do with manmade practices.
So why I ask you?
So a bunce of pontificating wankers can sit around tuggng each other off,bowing to the sun god and twiddling their beads and rock back and forth.
Never before have we so much to lose with little to gain.
Why??????????????
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
You ask why.
Because Al Gore is making billions out of it. That’s why.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
sigh
One day people will look back on this time and laugh at us luddites.
It’s the SUN stupid.
Sea levels have risen and fallen over the epochs. It’s quite nice we THINK we have something to do with it
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 9:36 pm
One day people will look back on this time and laugh at us luddites.
You mean, when they’ve dug through the sedimentary rocks and found us?
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
I am confused as to this last bit of reasoning. It seems to imply all outgoing radiation from the surface that is “blocked” by the clouds can only be readsorbed by the atmosphere.
It is entirely possible that radiation from the surface that is “blocked” (and by blocked we mean reflected) by the clouds may be readsorbed by the Earth’s surface.
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
“I want to reassure you, that in the government making its decision both on the ETS and the 2020 target, that needs to be at the front of our mind. You know if we look at the new bill that’s in the United States Congress, they’ve specifically made provision there for tariffs against countries that don’t take climate change seriously,”
Sorry Mr Farrar, there is no way I can join you in supporting Nick Smith. This guy in my humble opinion is a weak sell out to the left, and right from the start should have been fighting this bullshit with the same vigour that Senator Inhofe has in the states.
What is right is right, and you do not succumb to the blackmail of hideous charlatans like Al Gore.
As for Nick’s statement above, its self serving waffle. The US cap and trade bill will never make it through the Senate, and Nick Smith should know that and stop using it as a means to avoid manning up. There is no way there will ever be trade penalties applied in respect of this fast failing political lie.
And where were the left’s concerns with trade outcomes when they banned US nuclear powered ships??
Vote:July 26th, 2009 at 11:23 pm
For Nick Smith- Politicians in Germany are manning up on this fraud- why can’t you????
———————————-
Germany called a French idea to slap “carbon tariffs” on products from countries that are not trying to cut greenhouse gases a form of “eco-imperialism” and a direct violation of WTO rules.
The issue of greenhouse tariffs has met bitter opposition from developing countries such as China and India, who count on the developed world to buy their exports as they build their economies in the face of the worst financial crisis in decades.
Matthias Machnig, Germany’s State Secretary for the Environment, told a news briefing on Friday that a French push for Europe to impose carbon tariffs on imports from countries that flout rules on carbon emissions would send the wrong signal to the international community.
“There are two problems — the WTO (World Trade Organization), and the signal would be that this is a new form of eco-imperialism,” Machnig said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/internal_ReutersNewsRoom_BehindTheScenes_MOLT/idUSTRE56N1RJ20090724
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 9:26 am
paradigm, a more detailed discussion here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6590
The essential point as I interpret it is that clouds block a very high heat input to the earth’s surface during the day via SW raditation compared with the relatively slow loss of heat via atmospheric LW radiation during the night. This is on top of the inclination for clouds to accumulate due to surface evaporation during the day and disperse at night.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Alan, I still don’t see why you brought up the atmosphere’s heat capacity.
Further I feel that your belittling radiative heat loss from Earth is unwarrented. On average the amount of heat adsorbed by the earth must (at least approximately) equal the amount lost by radiation, as we are not suffering any sudden global temperature changes. To that end the heat loss through the Earth releasing radiation both at day and night will approximately equal the heat recieved from the sun during the day. To label one “very high” in comparision to the other is thus misleading.
I also note that the blanket assertion that clouds accumulate during the day and disperse at night is not entirely correct. The drop in temperature during the night causes water vapour in the atmosphere to condense, which can form clouds.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 11:48 am
paradigm, I did say “inclination” which is hardly a “blanket assertion”. We are all familiar in the subtropics certainly with night cooling producing dew and clear morning skies that cloud up as the day progresses.
“as we are not suffering any sudden global temperature changes”. But of course we do: the diurnal temperature fluctuation is very substantial indicating the daytime incoming radiation greatly exceeds the outgoing. Likewise winter/summer. And this is stored initially mostly in the earth’s surface rather than its atmosphere. From there it is dissipated by convection and radiation but it seems quite reasonable to conclude that the immediate local impact of clouds reflecting the direct incoming daytime solar radiation is likely to be greater than that of those same clouds blocking the diffuse radiation from surface and atmospheric source spread over a much wider geographic area by water and air convection.
It is interesting that analysis of global temperature trends suggests that any increases in daily max/min temperatures has been preferentially to the minimum temperatures. This suggests to me that the influence of clouds has indeed been to counteract the impact of CO2 increases during the day.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
When you use something to “hand wave” away all other effects as inconsequentially minor, it starts to become a blanket assertion. In the subtropics, we are also familiar with a layer of clouds remaining relatively intact all night. We are quite familiar with cloud formation in the evening too.
Perhaps I should have used a better term than global temperature. Global average temperature may have been more suitable, or indeed total heat retained on earth. Of course the temperature varies on opposing sides of the Earth from day to night and summer to winter, but averaged across the entire globe, total radiation recieved will roughly equal total radiation emitted. I’d also point out that more heat is actually radiated back into space from the day side of Earth than the night side.
That all depends on the type of clouds that result. And in spite of claims to the contrary, there is no “definitive” work indicating the proportion of high albedo to low albedo clouds. Climate change models will always recieve a certain degree of scepticism from me so long as they guess as to the proportion of these cloud types. So too will claims as to clouds being a “fix-all” for global warming.
Not really, as you yourself point out, heat tends to get moved away from the areas where it reaches its maximum, toward lower temperature areas. As well as that, one could equally claim that increased cloud cover at night was keeping heat in, as an explanation of the raised Temperature minimums.
Vote:July 27th, 2009 at 9:19 pm
Wouldn’t it be nice if John Key could just say, “Look, I’m not an idiot, I know all this warm-mongering is a hoax (I had that sussed years ago as I let slip once before).
“But this is not about facts. (No more than any other religious belief system is about facts.)
“It’s about two other things.
“First, it’s about marketing Brand New Zealand. And in marketing, perception is reality. And the perception is we’re an eco-country. 100% Pure. (Yeah right.)
“Our brand image depends on us doing all the right eco-trendy things, and it matters not one whit whether those things are grounded in reality.
“Second, and even more dangerous than the loss of all those eco-tourists, is the (further) loss of trade that will ensue if the US get wind that we’ve failed to do to our farmers what they quite unashamedly intend to fail to do to theirs.
“So in a nutshell, it’s all eco-bullshit designed to suck up to the United Hypocrites of America, and there’s not a damn thing we can do about it. Get used to it.”
Vote:July 31st, 2009 at 11:37 am
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0907/S00283.htm
Vote: