The madness of a 40% reduction by 2020
No Right Turn blogs:
The UK government has just announced an ambitious plan to meet its 34% by 2020 climate change target. The details look like nothing less than a green revolution:
Now you may look at this and think hey the UK is going for a 34% by 2020 target, so why not have NZ go for a 40% by 2020 target.
But here is the key difference. This is about how much below 1990 levels you can get. Now as of 2007 NZ was around 20% to 25% above 1990 levels. So in fact we would be having to go from 120% of 1990 to 60% of 1990 – in other words cut our emissions in half in just a decade. It simply can not be done without shooting a hell of a lot of cows.
The UK in 2006 was already 20% below its 1990 level. So the UK has to just go from 80% to 66% (a 14% reduction on 1990 levels), while NZ would have to go from 120% to 60% (a 60% reduction on 1990 levels).
This is why I call a 40% target by 2002 madness. It ignores where we are at today. It would lead to a huge number of jobs destroyed, and could well lead to increased emissions from other countries as they would take up our drop in agricultural production.
a massive investment by electricity companies in home insulation – £3.2 billion over four years to insulate 7.5 million homes.
This sounds a lot. But the UK economy is 20 times the size of the NZ economy. So in NZ terms that is the equivalent of spending 160 million pounds over four years or NZ$409 million.
And National’s 2009 budget announced $320 million over four years for home insulation. So in fact the UK commitment is only 25% greater.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
From Muriel Newman’s latest newsletter:::::”To achieve a 40% emission reduction in eleven short
years we would have to take drastic action. If you took all transport off
the road you would save around 20% of our national emissions, if you shut
down our industry you would save a measly 12 %, if you went to 100%
renewable electricity you would save an even more measly 11% (given we
already have a high percentage of renewable electricity generation)
July 16th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
And for every cow or sheep we remove cutting the supply of meat the price rises and justifies another few thousands of hectares of Amazon Basin being made into pasture. As long as demand for beef, mutton and dairy remains constant (or continues to rise) there can only be negative global consequences of NZ instituting an emmissions cap.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
The present UK Government is not going to be around after the 2010 election, let alone 2020.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:44 pm
We may have missed out on Mad Cow Disease…
but do we have the nous to skip Mad Carbon Disease?
July 16th, 2009 at 6:03 pm
Isn’t England the land of the Mad Hatters Tea Party?
One would have to see Brown as the Mad Hatter or worse.
No wonder they no longer Rule Britannia.
July 16th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
sigh.
idiots. all of them.
too many beauraucrats.
July 16th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
The UK is broke. It is the poster child of bureaucratic over-indulgence and Govt largesse.
July 16th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
Bonkers – the non productive chattering class hobbling the productive.
Do any of you know why 1990 is the magical year for setting targets? As opposed to 2000 say or 1790 for that matter.
Let me enlighten you if you don’t know.
See in 1990 communism was falling but the filthy black smoke industries of Eastern Europe were still functioning and belching out their pollution. Of course these industries have long gone under – nothing to do with greenism just market economics led to their demise.
However in calculating emissions targets under Kyoto they count. Ergo the great polluters of the twentieth century like the Soviet Union, Romania etc have met their emissions targets quite easily whereas gullible little New Zealand which has never had a heavy industrial base struggles to meet its and certain segments of the community including alas the some in the National party beat their chests and wail about us donning our hair shirts and penalizing farmers for polluting – the farmers who feed us all for God’s sake.
Talk about a very sick joke.
July 16th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
The only way 40% reduction by 2020 is achievable is by the Kampuchean Solution. Pol Pot was the world’s first true greenie, he emptied the cities and slashed not only the population but also Cambodia’s carbon emissions all before it was even fashionable.
Not surprising that Pol Pot was/is Keith Locke’s hero.
July 16th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
its funny listening to nick Smith banging on about the Government Home insulation scheme. I attended a couple of election meetings durring the campaign in 2008 where he talked down the whole scheme and said it was a waste of money.
However having said that i am glad that the Nats have adopted another fine Green idea Kudos for them in doing that.
As for the reduction target in 2020 it depends on how much one believes in AGW and the urgency to to reduce emmissions.
Short term economic pain for us in the rich anglo saxon west, measured against famine for millions in the third world.???
no bugger them i want a 40′ flat screen Tv in my bedroom
July 16th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
“The only way 40% reduction by 2020 is achievable is by the Kampuchean Solution. Pol Pot was the world’s first true greenie”
No wonder you suffer from depression if that is yor distorted view of the world. I would up the meds if I was you
July 16th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Short term economic pain for us in the rich anglo saxon west, measured against famine for millions in the third world.???
no bugger them i want a 40′ flat screen Tv in my bedroom
Another bonkers greenie – how the fuck does cutting New Zealand’s dairy herds help prevent third world famine?
You feed the world by creating wealth not by destroying it – cretin.
July 16th, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Andrei In the per capita emissions stakes we are not pulling our weight
I would have thought someone of your political bent would have been against free loaders
July 16th, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Kaptial you are a c**t, now forget about my mental health.
How about you propose exactly how we are supposed to get this reduction, i’ve had a go at trying to work it out, show about you? Or as usual is it all about floating a goal with zero intention or wherewithall to actually achieve it.
Did I mention you are a c**t?
July 16th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Don’t call e a cretin just because I happen to share a different world view then you.
My reference to famine in the third world, is the fact that AGW is likely going to cause severe starvation in the third world.
its already stated to happen.
July 16th, 2009 at 7:15 pm
It does seem ridiculous to this leftie that NZ be subject to onerous carbon emissions restrictions, when our main output is food, and the food supply simply cannot be compromised while there is an exponentially growing world population. In a co-ordinated and sensibly regulated market the food supply is one of the essentials that you would make way for, even by inconveniencing other less essential sectors if necessary.
In all of this discussion there is a lot of focus on bullshit details e.g. “those lunatics are talking about HOW MANY PERCENT??” before the basic problem and solution is even very widely appreciated…at least that is this layman’s impression.
July 16th, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Comparisons with the UK don’t really hold, for a number of reasons.
Nuclear power is back in favour in the UK, and the number of new nukes being planned there is staggering.
Also, the UK has had its hand forced to an extent because North Sea oil and gas are running out.
The key point about NZ is that there is absolutely no point slashing emissions (and thus economic growth) if the smoke will just billow up from another country who picks up the industrial slack. (With apologies for mixed metaphors).
July 16th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Well a cretin and a cunt in two posts we are doing well aren’t we
mr whaleoil you called your mental health into question by saying that polpot was the worlds first true greenie. by any measure that is a fucking stupid thing to say.
[DPF: Then just say it is a stupid or offensive comparison. But gratitous references to mental health will get demerits in future.]
July 16th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Actually, Kapital, if it was a decision to have a 50′ TV and a few third worlders die I would go for the TV. Survival of the fittest, it will become. If the world had a great famine (which Green policy would create), then CO2 emissions will decrease, hence crisis averted.
Dumb socialist C&*t.
July 16th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
My reference to famine in the third world, is the fact that AGW is likely going to cause severe starvation in the third world.
its already stated to happen.
Of course how foolish of me not to see it before. Those ancient greenhouse gas emitters were responsible for the famine recorded in genesis, Babylonian coal fired power stations no doubt. And obviously George Stephenson’s Rocket was behind the great famine in Ireland during the nineteenth century.
Or could it be that the reason they don’t have famines in Ireland anymore is the technology that makes farming more productive and the transport of goods – including food cheap and easy?
July 16th, 2009 at 7:24 pm
Kapital – Hyper-partisan politics is good for the world. We need more name-calling and swearing – it’s so damn productive.
The blogosphere in general and whale oil in particular are merely the leading edge of this larger movement.
July 16th, 2009 at 7:26 pm
ratbiter it is technologicaly feasable to cut our agricultural emissions without recourse to shooting cows.
July 16th, 2009 at 7:27 pm
andrei – you can’t simplify it that far. Stephenson’s Rocket made about half a horsepower, and produced exhaust volumes accordingly. But a puff of smoke that scattered on the breeze.
21st century industrialization in the northern hemisphere generates tonnes of carbon products per second. it doesn’t all just disappear. (Or maybe it does?)
July 16th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
Kapital – Fully! A diesel freight train moves payload at about 10% of the fuel cost per tonne per mile of road transport. Unfortunately, in the crucible of “rigorous” debate on the blogosphere, this is considered greenie propaganda…
July 16th, 2009 at 7:30 pm
This is a good article:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml
July 16th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
The only way in which we can achieve this would be to decimate our meat and dairy industries, which would mean we would destroy our economy and financial gravy train which keeps all green initiative going. Its all very well having european countries demand that we make reductions in greenhouse emissions, but when you do not have alternative industries or a significant amount of fossil fuel electricity production to cut back on, it is a little unfair.
Besides, to be consistent with my previous posts, animals who emit carbon into the atmosphere are only returning te carbon that was consumed by the grass that they eat. It is all part of a carbon neutral cycle and therefore should be eliminated from calculating our carbon emissions.
July 16th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Andrei I stopped raeding when you mentioned from genisis another fundy, explains alot
SKy bue calls me a dumb cunt after saying he would rather people die if he gets to having a bigger TV.. hmmm
Julian slashing emissions does not neccesarily mean stifiling economic growth.
(however as continued economic growth at present s is based on the continued consumption and exploitationand use of non renwable resources. that itself presents a whole range of problems
July 16th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
DPF,
You are pretty much wrong about this, you know. The targets being discussed refer to a country’s net carbon position. You compare the UK’s net target with NZ’s gross emissions, and fulminate about 40% cuts being impossible here (sounds like you’re channelling Nick Smith..). If all you look at is emissions, then it probably is, but if you take carbon sinks into account the picture is very different. Forest carbon will bring our net position to approximate balance at the end of CP1, and a sensible set of policies to encourage afforestation will deal with a good chunk more over CP2. In effect, trees can buy us the time to get emissions down in other sectors. Some land use change from dairy to other high value crops would also help. There’s more to agriculture than dairying.
[DPF: The amount of credit we get for our trees has fluctutated massively in recent months. We went from 17% over 1990 levels to slightly under 1990 levels in just one revaluation. And as trees take time to mature I am very sceptical that one can plant enough to reduce net emissions significantly by 2020]
July 16th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
grizz “the only way that we could achieve this is to decimate our meat and dairy industries.”
leaving apart the fact that that statement is complete bollocks. We will decimate them if we don’t cut our emissions
No bugger in europe or the states will buy anything from us if we don’t pull our weight or are seen to be doing so
July 16th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
Julian manages to find an anti AGW link.. Well Done Julian
July 16th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Anthropogenic global warming is far from proven. And the rest of the world (deep in recession) has shelved a lot of green dreams – most of which are driven by vested interests anyway.
Gareth I thought we had far more trees in 1990 than now (now that a lot of what was previously forest land has been converted to farmland), so how do you figure that net emissions will fall as a result of forest carbon?
July 16th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Thanks Kapital. I’m not going to congratulate you for having a go at someone’s mental health.
You’ve got your argument about Europe and the US backwards though. The total emissions generated by producing and transporting a leg of lamb or a kiwifruit or whatever are much lower (in total) ex NZ than they are from the same European product. But the EU will jump on NZ’s climate change policy as a form of protectionism.
So I agree with you, but for a different reason.
July 16th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
Gareth, I don’t see how 40% net reductions in 11 years is realistic without drastic cuts in emissions.
July 16th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
re having a go at someones mental health….. normaly I would agree but come on its Whaleoil we are talking about …
Pol pot the first greenie ??? FFS
Anyway if we are in agreement (but for different reasons) NZ has little choice but to make meaningful cuts in its emissions
Inspite of the protestations from many on this site,the AGW argument has been won and NZ will have to make meaningful cuts to its emissions like it or not
July 16th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
‘NZ has little choice but to make meaningful cuts in its emissions’ – that I agree with.
But testing the arguments about AGW is important. As is creating a policy that is in line with the rest of the world.
Realistically, anything New Zealand does is not going to have any effect WHATSOEVER on the environment as a whole – we are simply too small. So as long as we’re seen to be doing something, relative to what others are doing, we should be OK.
July 16th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Kapital “We will decimate them if we don’t cut our emissions
No bugger in europe or the states will buy anything from us if we don’t pull our weight or are seen to be doing so”
Farming practices in Europe and the States are very energy intensive. Food miles are only part of the equation of energy consumption in food. Transporting feed to the animals on a daily basis consumes far more energy than transporting the final product on a container ship, even if it is half way around the world.
People also talk about land clearances after 1990. If I could go back in time a little further, in the bad old days of farm subsidies and minimum price guarantees, large amounts of land were cleared for livestock. Once those subsidies ended, a lot of the cleared land was abandoned and allowed to regenerate. A prime example would be Stewart Island. The low lying interior of our third island was cleared in an attempt to establish a farm. After it failed, it has been allowed to return to bush. Other areas of failed land were planted out into plantation forests. If we were to go back a further 10 years to 1980, how different would we be today than what we were then.
However, I do agree that if we are going to be an agriculturally based country we have to be much more diversified. I for one am happy if our sheep and wool production were to decline so long as it were replaced by other viable industries.
July 16th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Andrew,
In the absence of any serious policy for either emissions cuts or increasing the size of carbon sinks, it’s impossible to be dogmatic (so I won’t bark). But I do think that we should aim high (which means low emissions). Remember, it’s not that long ago that Solid Energy was touting a plan to create “Kiwiforest” – a national forest estate to offset most of BAU emissions, so good growth in carbon sinks is certainly possible – as are sensible emissions cuts. Put the two together, and who knows where we might end up. But as I’ve said at Hot Topic, I only advocate 40% as a conditional target – one that’s matched by major economies. Doesn’t look likely – and that is in itself very bad news…
Cheers
July 16th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Kapital, AGW if it truly exists, will not cause starvation, a cooling world would be required for that. Starvation is human caused though, one only has to look at where starvation exists to understand that foolish policies put in place by foolish humans cause almost all the food shortages that exist. Two good examples, North Korea and Zimbabwe, both with food deficits caused almost entirely by stupidity. Hey, and Pol Pot was following policies very similar to those put forward by some of the more extreme greens, please don’t show your ignorance. Pol Pot may not have been like all greens, but he was like some greens.
The AGW lie has indeed been successfully promoted and turned into a religion, thus one can not easily overturn it because it it is not subject to scientific dispute, only heretics would do that ! NZ’s problem is a religio-political one, namely Kyoto. Under Kyoto we have to count our Methane emissions as a negative, but we can’t count any of the inputs to those emissions, nor can we argue as is probably correct, that NZ’s actual methane emissions are probably the same regardloess of the number of our sheep and cattle herds. Look sometime at where the large emissions of methane come from, the Taiga and rice growing areas are the biggest sources. Are these being counted, given that NZ’s emissions of methane are a fraction of a % of those, and if we destroyed our herds tomorrow and farmed for crops instead, our real emissions would probably not change significantly, but our “counted” emissions would. Why, why, whyy, are we expected to make purely symbolic cuts that have no impact and no meaning, so certain people can luxuriate in the righteousness of their ability to turn the NZ economy to shit. That’s religion for you though.
The same is true with forests, forests have significant methane outputs, only under Kyoto these are not counted. So we could in real life, actually increase our real emissions and yet reduce them according to Kyoto. A more foolish way of proceeding would seem hard to find, perhaps that’s why it appeals to so many.
July 16th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
From Muriel Newman’s latest newsletter:::::”To achieve a 40% emission reduction in eleven short
years we would have to take drastic action. If you took all transport off
the road you would save around 20% of our national emissions, if you shut
down our industry you would save a measly 12 %, if you went to 100%
renewable electricity you would save an even more measly 11% (given we
already have a high percentage of renewable electricity generation)
There is “global warming” and “climate change” on the planet Mars, and um, there is none of the above there.
Duh.
July 16th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
forests have significant methane outputs
No, they don’t.
July 16th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Gareth thanks for clarifying that. I think another key point is that our 1990 (base year) level is extremely high (compared with, say, Russia’s) so achieving a cut like 40% is near impossible (the point DPF effectively makes).
July 16th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Inspite of the protestations from many on this site,the AGW argument has been won and NZ will have to make meaningful cuts to its emissions like it or not
I love you fundies – the way you are convinced that if you tell a lie enough times it will become true.
But dear old mother nature isn’t obliging you and is steadfastly refusing to go along with your AGW fantasies.
And you and your fellow travelers are looking more and more foolish by the day. If it wasn’t for the vested interests of the left this nonsense would have been laughed out of court years ago.
As it is we have people who wouldn’t know a differential equation if they fell over one performing emissions “accounting” and talking the talk about carbon emitters and sinks yadda yadda. All double talk.
Guess what – the climate has varied throughout recorded history – a fact that has been recognized since at least the 1890s Warming periods have been times of peace and prosperity whereas the colder periods have been times of famine, war and pestilence. So if we are warming the planet we are almost certainly doing humanity a favour.
Alas I don’t think we are – there is little tangible evidence to suggest we are, more likely we are heading for hard times as the planet cools – hard times which will be exacerbated by green lunatic policys. And if indeed the cooling becomes undeniable you lieing left wing arseholes will blame greenhouse gases – just flip your position and pretend that is what you were predicting all along.
July 16th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
Kapital>SKy bue calls me a dumb cunt after saying he would rather people die if he gets to having a bigger TV.. hmmm
And you’d rather see people die than turn off your computer.
Every time you post, climate change kills a tiny African baby. That’s 10 already in this thread.
July 16th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Andrei – exactly right. To quote from the article I posted earlier:
‘I’m a natural scientist. I’m out there every day, buried up to my neck in sh**, collecting raw data. And that’s why I’m so sceptical of these models, which have nothing to do with science or empiricism but are about torturing the data till it finally confesses. None of them predicted this current period we’re in of global cooling. There is no problem with global warming. It stopped in 1998. The last two years of global cooling have erased nearly 30 years of temperature increase.’
July 16th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
ED Another Pol pot= Green man.
Although I have never met you, I think with some degree of certainty that I have met and know quite a few more Greens then you have. and stangely enough ever have I ever seen or heard any pol pot like tendencies.
If you think that “Pol Pot may not have been like all greens, but he was like some greens.” has any basis in truth then how do you expect the concusions you have come to regarding AGW to be taken seriously ?
However regarding our emissions our per capita emissions are really quite high and to be (or be seen) as responsible global citizens (and not freeloaders) we need to be able to make substantial cuts in our emissions.
This DOES not mean destroying our agriculturing base as much as DPF like to dogwhisltle it (sheepdog?)
We are doing well in R&D in this area at the moment and probably would have done better if the R& d funding hadn’t have been scrapped . Also that technoligcal innovation that we are famed for has huge export potential
Meaningful cutts in emiisions will have far more benifits for NZ on many levels then closing ones eyes sticking ones fingers in ones ears and hoping it alll goes away.
July 16th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
I am going to set up a ‘Carbon Trust’, and save the Planet. Give me money now, or you are doomed.
Not long before the Nigerians and Dutch scammers move from Lottery wins, or Windfall Money into this scam.
It is almost perfect, and the Dutch have a demonstrable amount of windmills as well!
July 16th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Andrei et al although you can and most likely still stick you fingers in your ears close your eyes and sing la la la la laaa
, the “consensus” about anthropogenic climate change entails the following:
* the climate is undergoing a pronounced warming trend that is beyond the range of natural variability.
* the major cause of most of the observed warming is rising levels of the greenhouse gas CO2
* the rise in CO2 is the result of fossil fuel burning.
* if CO2 continues to rise over the next century the warming will continue
* a climate change of the projected magnitude over this time frame represents potential danger to human welfare and the environment
While theories and alternate view points in conflict with the above do exist, their proponents are in a very small minority. If one requires unanimity before being confident, well, we can’t be sure the earth isn’t hollow either.
This consensus is represented in the IPCC Third Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (TAR WG1). This is the most comprehensive compilation and summary of current climate research ever attempted, and is arguably the most thoroughly peer reviewed scientific document in history. While this review was sponsored by the UN, the research it compiled and reviewed was not, and the scientists involved were independent and came from all over the world..
The conclusions reached in this document have been explicitly endorsed by:
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
With the greatest respect .. who ya gunna believe ?
July 16th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Bloody pol pot greenie commies the lot of them I say
July 16th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
With the greatest respect .. who ya gunna believe ?
My thermometer. It says we have had the coldest, earliest longest start to winter for several decades.
July 16th, 2009 at 9:22 pm
weather and climate eh who would have thought there was a difference?
July 16th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
Actually, I’m inclined to believe this guy:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
He runs one of the two satellite temperature sensing programmes that actually accurately measure what is happening.
July 16th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
This is another guy who knows a lot more than most about the subject:
http://climatesci.org/
July 16th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Kapital, if CO2 emissions are caused by burning of fossil fuels, then tell me why many meaningful energy projects seem to be knocked back by Greenies driving their 4WDs to the tops of hill ranges in protest of wind farm development. They may look ugly or make a whirring noise, but you cannot have your cake and eat it too.
I am very skeptical that any renewable energy project will ever proceed in New Zealand as the same people who want them seem to knock back every project idea. For reasons beyond belief, it is easier to build a coal fired power station than to erect a few windmills. To reduce transmission costs, places like the West Coast and Tasman regions need more electricity stations. Suggest a hydro dam on the West Coast (many rivers with prime gravity from the southern Alps) and you get invaded by Khumer Green. Go to Greymouth in winter and you will find the log burners working overtime. There is less CO2 emission with Inverter pumps powered by gravitational flow of water.
July 16th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Alan Roy Spencer
“I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world… Science has startled us with its many discoveries and advances, but it has hit a brick wall in its attempt to rid itself of the need for a creator and designer.”
Hmm not the most credible then
The other link was more interesting but the guy still says “he evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible”
July 16th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
On the subject of unjustifiable IPCC worship, Steve McIntyre has an interesting analysis today which highlights the blatant bias of the IPCC authors. Watch how they edit an objective scientific paper to twist its meaning to suit their AGW agenda:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6590
July 16th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Kapital, lose the ad hominem slander from your AGW mates and read the science.
Pielke’s comment is one all skeptics would agree with. But firstly the influence takes many forms with local land use changes being major factors and secondly the climate’s response to those influences is what is in question.
July 16th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Grizz
greenies driving 4 wheel drives to the top of hill ranges I think your defination of greenies is alot different to mine
I know a hell of a lot of “greenies” non that t would drive to the top of a hill range in a 4wd to protest against wind development I think that you are just making shit up
Greenies are very supportive of small scale local electricity generation . the West coast has ample opportunites for such schemes which kinda condtridicts what you said.
But then you also said “Khumer Green” so that kinda negates your entire post
July 16th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Alan Re Ad homimen slander see and acknowledge your point
but it does kinda make you want to questions the guys scientific credentials when he believes in Intelligent design.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Just have a look at who is pushing the climate change con.
Just today these same people have begun talking about Tony Blair for the post as European President, these are the same bastards who are working toward the one world government ideal.
For years these pinko’s beavered away in wacko fringe parties, then all of a sudden their trojan horse rode into town in the shape of climate change, over night they had a cause that would finally make their dreams a reality, over night they gained credibility in the eyes of many, make no mistake, these whack jobs know that their very existence is tied up with ensuring that the whole world (western world) is taken in by this con, they will fight tooth and nail to see that the con is forced upon us, they will tell any lie they can, slander and destroy anybody who stands up against them as this is their one and only chance to enforce world socialism by stealth.
They must be resisted at every turn, they must be defeated, they must be driven from our political landscape or before we know it we will be run by the UN and answerable to either Chairman Blair or Chairman Klark.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:11 pm
Kapital, Both Trustpower and Meridian (All renewable producers) have projects planned for the West Coast. They will never happen as the tree hugging mafia will never let the West Coast give up a couple of their waterways. I never said the West Coast was devoid of hydro generating opportunities, I was pointing out the complete opposite and the difficultes for any of them to get up and running.
Getting a little sidetracked, but after noticing a large number of snails on the Heaphy last year, I asked a local West Coast DOC staffer about them. To my horror, they were exactly the same snails that Solid Energy had to spend vast sums of money and delay their mine project to move. Although we were told they only inhabited a couple of ridge tops, in reality, they were much further flung. Again Kapital’s mates scaring us with bullshit.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
Hmm so Big bruv wades into the debate “pinko wacko fringe parties he cries
wordld socialism by stealth”
“Those stanch Socialists Chairman Blair
and Charman Klark’
Fuck there is only wacko around here mate .. Do you actually believe the shit you write ?
July 16th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Grizz using expressions like “tree hugging mafia” does tend to weaken your discussion points
I was looking for a paper that someone from the GP put out a couple of years ago regarding small scale electricity genration ideas for the Coast not necceasarily hydro but you probably wouldn’t read it because it wouldn’t conform to your narrow minded world view ( i could be wrong of course)
July 16th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Kapital, this is Spencer’s article on Intelligent Design – as far as I know the only time he has commented on it.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/roy-spencer-on-intelligent-design/
Hardly a ranting creationist, I think. More like a scientist exploring ideas, philosophy and experimental evidence though probably well-outdated factually as he is describing his thoughts of two decades earlier.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
“Green revolution”
More like “Labour’s last chance to fuck up the Union in the name of social justice for another 20 years.”
July 16th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
NZ’s competitive edge lies in our potential world-leadership in environmental control of the “dangerous” ruminant emissions and micro-energy generation.
Whatever the fuck the science says and I for one think its bollocks, the idiots have spoken. Apparently, cow farts are bad. Ergo: make money out of preventing it. The answer’s in the pasture. We’re world leaders in that.
Micro-energy: if we can’t make it work, who can? We’re slaves to the world at the moment: i.e. we follow the trends. If we had to pick a trend, develop it and sell it to the world, what would it be?
Why not this?
July 16th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
I’m with you, Reid. Microgeneration. Let’s do it.
July 16th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Microgeneration? Great idea, all you have to do is get it past the RMA. Good luck with that.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Alan, if you want to understand the issues try reading more widely.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
Actually Kapital, I have read a lot about innovative renewable energy projects that could work in NZ. Some small and some grandiose. My interests may have been different from yours in that they would reduce our reliance upon increasingly expensive imported fossil fuels. The electricity could be used for greenshoots industry. People in the West Coast dig holes for minerals as there is not enough alternative employment. However, I have been largely diasappointed by opposition to many of these projects. Furthermore, the RMA process has also seen many obstructed by the incursion of so few.
Curiously, the people who I thought would be the most supportive are often the most resistant. These people are often associated with the Green Party and other environmental/left leaning groups. Standing on top of the Old Man Range, I looked across to the Lammermores and the Lammerlaws. These barren windswept range tops would be perfect for a vast sea of twirling windmills. However they undermine the visual ambiance of a couple of artists and a rugby hooker with a crooked throw. As another example, tidal generators could be installed in the Kaipara Harbour. However there will be resistance from local “fishers” and local tribal groups will want a cut of the profits as entitled to them under the Treaty of Waitangi. You talk about small scale hydro generators. Nice idea, but someone will complain about their loss of water or a couple of service trucks driving across their property or some other little nitpick that disrupts the high horse in which they sit on. Often their greatest supporters are Left leaning who support a large bureaucracy of red tape. I was also critical of the last government when Meridian sold out of its Australian hydroelectricity assets. Instead of using the billion dollar proceeds to invest in new electricity generation, they instead used it to buy an election with stupid purchases like an overpriced piece of rust known as Kiwirail. As a tradeoff, we had to put up with increasing electricity prices due to our electricity supply inflationary bottleneck.
Unless the RMA is reformed, we are going to burn coal and wood to keep warm, keep on digging holes, pay vast sums of money to keep Genesis Energy in business and construct new fossil fuel burning power stations. While Greenies may speak about renewable energy, your behaviour and attitudes often achieve the opposite. Hence the term “tree hugging mafia”. The self appointed barriers to progress.
From my point of view, if we are going to reduce our reliance on imported fossil fuels, we need to be prepared to give up something for the common good. This could mean for some you are going to have to get your whitebait from another river. For others, you will pull back your curtains in the morning and see a 100 metre windmill in the distance (go to Palmerston North, they are not that bad). Also I find it puzzling why an aluminium smelter should consume 500MW of electricity just to employ a few hundred people. It could employ thousands if channeled into different industry.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
I said, let’s do it.
You really think the RMA is going to get in our way if we decide to do it?
Let’s do it.
Who’s with me?
July 16th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
It’s perfect for us Ryan, but it’s not so much the research but the manufacturing and shipping is the killer. What we need is an NZ Inc approach to this.
Will they do it?
All it takes is a small seed.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:12 pm
Fuck will they do it.
We do it.
Who do we talk to? Engineering faculties at unis, and we talk to sponsors to offer prizes for cheap innovative designs for plausible microgeneration in the Kiwi context, with an option to provide further funding for future development for a profit share. Let’s go. List potential sponsors. I’ll start.
All of those punks from that awful TV show with the investors. Bob Jones and the like.
Power companies.
Anyone charitable with a taste of green in them.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
And I’m not kidding. Go. List possibilities. Let’s go.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
It’s not so much about seed capital, it’s about preventing the IP from all of those previously taxpayer-owned facilities that have become “market-oriented,” from disappearing off-shore.
I mean, if Victoria Uni sold a patent to MIT who then sold it to say, GE, where does the NZ taxpayer stand? Nowhere, is the legal answer.
How do we incent Vic to do right by us, if MIT is going to pay her 100 times what we could afford to?
July 16th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
Excellent question.
Suggestions, everyone?
July 16th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
I agree that microgeneration is a great option for NZ – specifically because of its climate and geography.
The ownership of the patents and the actual adoption of the technology are two different things though aren’t they? Who cares how they’re developed? If it’s in NZ and they become world-leading NZ companies, all the better.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
http://dartmouthwaveenergy.com/video_83mm_prototype_seatrial.html
July 16th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Presidente Blair.
Yes, looking very possible. The man that sexed up the weapons of Mass destruction message. Pity a forthright scientist Kelly had to die for his lack of diplomacy.
Apparently he committed suicide. Like you do, when out walking. (a dog).
Then Teflon Tony gets to be a Middle east Envoy, after we kicked the shit out of the Republican Guard. Killing Thousands in a traffic Jam.
Yes, the Socialists are trying to grasp power in the One World Arena, as they won’t see it at National level for a decade.
July 16th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Das Kapital. The Science is not settled. It is just the debate has been closed by one side.
Anyway it is only about money and control.
My thermometer and barometer aren’t paid to lie.
July 17th, 2009 at 5:12 am
My rant and rave.
Go Nuclear.
Retrain the fossil fuel power station staff to run Nuclear power stations, and carbon emissions will fall (hopefully no job losses). Greenie ludites can choke on that.
The only way to reduce world carbon emissions is to reduce world population. Kyoto did not bind 3rd world to stablise population so more 3rd world starving souls with or without global warming. The 1st world is doing a very good job at reducing it’s population naturally. So much that we have to have immigration. And Kyoto did not allow for NZ to bring poor suffering 3rd worlders into NZ and increase our carbon emissions.
Kapital, Pol Pot murdered and destroyed his country. Carbon emissions dropped as did the economy crashed. Keith Locke is on record as supporting Pol Pot when he came to power. ipso facto Pol Pot is a greenie.
Right, up to Mt Ruapahue to check out the global warming first hand. Sorry about the carbon emissions. (don’t even get me started out anthropological climate change).
July 17th, 2009 at 5:27 am
I don’t think nuclear power is really feasible in NZ because of our geography (long, thin country). It would be mean changes to the grid that would simply cost too much. (I am in favour of nuclear power generally).
July 17th, 2009 at 7:18 am
Kapital
Talking about consensus, please have a look at this http://petitionproject.org/
31,478 scientists including 9029 with Phd’s have signed a petition which says the following:
“We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Some of the scientists who have signed this include Professor Ball, reputed to be one of the top five physicists in the World.
I haven’t heard the IPCC make mention of this. In fact I place little store on the list of names of scientists they put on their “research” papers. There is no way of really knowing if they even agree with the paper. One I know of (Professor Richter) totally refuted the nonsense they produced but had to threaten legal action before they finally removed his name from the paper.
July 17th, 2009 at 7:41 am
A couple of microgeneration ideas that don’t get a lot of coverage:
Pumped water energy storage, use an unreliable energy source or sources eg; wind, solar thermal, wood burner, to pump water to a small reservoir at the top of a hill, you can then use microhydro to generate reliable power.
Hook a wood burner up to a mini steam turbine.
The trouble with these systems is the initial capital input or the time spent to keep them going usually makes them less attractive than just hooking up to the grid.
Micro hydro can work well with pay-back in just 3 years, but not everyone has a suitable stream in their back yard.
July 17th, 2009 at 7:48 am
Petitions are a bore Bogusnews, but since you’re so keen on them, why don’t you sign this one?
http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
July 17th, 2009 at 8:56 am
Andrew: “Alan, if you want to understand the issues try reading more widely.”
Obviously I touched you on a sore spot, Andrew?
Also, Bogusnews is right. Some of the papers by Mann’s AGW self-styled “The Team” are just ludicrous with zillions of “authors” in a pathetic attempt to defend McIntyre’s entirely justified dismantling of their statistics with sheer weight of numbers. Ludicrous non-science, and an echo of the “100 Scientists Against Einstein” who didn’t like his relativity theory.
As he said, if I was wrong one scientist would be enough.
July 17th, 2009 at 9:31 am
Your comment’s a little confused Alan, Bogus offers a petition, you say he’s right because such things are ludicrous, then you have Mann’s “Team” “defending” McIntyre’s “dismantling”.
July 17th, 2009 at 9:43 am
No, I said Bogusnews was right about the silly long lists of names on “The Team”‘s papers. He is.
As far as the petition goes, that was simply a PR effort to show the media that “The Science is Settled Consensus” is false – which any proper scientist knows is always the case anyway.
July 17th, 2009 at 10:10 am
The IPCC collects hundreds of papers written by scientists acting independently in dozens of research facilities, that’s where all the names come from, they’re not added just to make up numbers.
occasionally a contributing researcher may disagree with the final conclusions and ask that his name be removed, no biggie.
You didn’t address your claim about Mann’s “Team” “defending” McIntyre’s “dismantling”.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Why did I get 4 thumbs down for saying nukes aren’t feasible in NZ? Would be helpful if someone could explain how they are instead of just clicking the mouse. I would be interested to know.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Pebble-bed reactors are a possible answer for NZ. One ran in Germany off and on for 15(?) years, with not too many problems.
They are far safer than other types (e.g. can’t melt down). Sure, they aren’t being mass produced commercially yet, but there must be enough pebble-bed experienced engineers in Germany, South Africa and China that could ‘whip up’ a set of plans for us.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Pebble-bed reactors are a possible answer for NZ. One ran in Germany off and on for 21 years, with not too many problems.
They are far safer than other types (e.g. can’t melt down). Sure, they aren’t being mass produced commercially yet, but there must be enough pebble-bed experienced engineers in Germany, South Africa and China that could ‘whip up’ a set of plans for us.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:26 am
The geography of the country isn’t really a problem, in fact given that we already transmit massive amounts of power from the deep south to Auckland, building a Nuclear station in the northern half of North Island would reduce this problem.
People often object to Nuke stations on the basis that it’s too many eggs in one basket, reactors are typically of about 1000MW capacity, but smaller reactors can be built, and personally I’d like to see electrification of most of the transport network, that would massively increase power demand, using nuke power that would reduce oil imports, and reduce carbon emissions.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:41 am
Ross – thanks for that.
Andrew W – excellent idea about electrifying the transport network. A high-speed electric link between Auckland and Wellington would be brilliant.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:48 am
Julian, we could chauffeur the goods between Auckland and Wellington in gold-plated Rolls-Royces for what it would cost to rebuild the railway to high-speed standard. We already have a high-speed link – aeroplanes.
We have to find solutions that fit our population, geography and needs.
July 17th, 2009 at 11:57 am
Thanks for the lecture Alan. I didn’t realise we were all doing cost-benefit studies prior to posting.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
DPF
Is it blogging when comments are not permitted? Is it blogging when only your own opinion is allowed to stand unchallenged ?
It’s MSM delived via the web – it’s not blogging !
July 17th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
You’re welcome, Julian. Common sense is very uncommon.
July 17th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
Touche! Nice quote.
I look forward to seeing the studies you refer to on the cost of high-speed rail in the North Island.
Oh wait, there aren’t any.
http://tinyurl.com/luufw9
July 17th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
It’s posting on your blog.
People who use “blog” as a verb need to be shot. WITH A POOR-ENGLISH VACCINE.
EDIT: I’m kidding, of course. I know that language is constantly devolving.
July 17th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Julian, London to Manchester distance 290km just cost NZ$40 Billion. Auckland to Wellington distance 660km with some rugged terrain incl Raurimu spiral.
July 17th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
I was thinking more along the lines of ways to electrify road transport.
July 17th, 2009 at 9:12 pm
In the interests of widening both our reading lists, Andrew, I took a look at this relatively new website which has had a number of links to it from ClimateDebateDaily recently. It’s not bad, pretty smart and clued up guys:
http://www.theresilientearth.com/
July 17th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Thanks Alan, I’ll try to remember to visit that site from time to time, but as Mr Hoffman labels anthropogenic global warming “one of the biggest scientific scams of our time”, I can’t say I expect anything other than the sort of blinkered and politically motivated spiel typical of the sites you like.
If you’re keen to debate AGW, Gareth’s Hot Topic site’s probably a good place to start, I don’t need to tell you that you’ll learn more challenging the claims of those you disagree with than you will listening in on echo chambers, and yes, I do practice what I preach.
As I’ve said before I’ve been following this debate for sometime now and am getting a bit tired of it all, the same talking points just go around and around. My position is that AGW is almost certainly occurring, but I’m not convinced by claims that we’re heading towards “catastrophic warming” – if we are heading towards disaster it’ll be a combination of many factors that’ll cause such catastrophe; over population, resource depletion, changes in the global balance of power etc.
Cheers.
July 18th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Andrew, I prefer sites run by practical scientists or engineers which do not block or censor opposing points of view from being heard. That rules out many pro-AGW sites such as RealClimate, Tamino and Romm.
But mostly I choose sites which describe interesting new work or critiques.
My position is that there are several ways in which human activity tends to increase global temperature but that there are far too many uncertainties in both the planet’s response and natural influences on climate to know what the future impact will be. I also think the Stern Report is completely unrealistic about the economic cost benefit consequences of mitigation rather than adaption.
Global warming is not something you believe in, it is something you measure – albeit with considerable difficulty.
July 18th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
How about IPCC experts resigning due to misrepresentation of their work?
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/…/LandseaResignationLetterFromIPCC.htm
July 19th, 2009 at 5:19 am
And some more on how the weather never stays the same from day to day, month to month, or from season to season.
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/
July 22nd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Hmmmmmmmmm………….a short 35 years ago we were worried about the impending Ice Age. Refer to the attached TIME cover story.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html
Go figure huh. Says it all really.