Fallow on 2020 target

August 1st, 2009 at 7:18 am by David Farrar

Brian Fallow writes:

The sort of number the Government has been directing our attention towards, in a non-committal way, is a 15 per cent cut from 1990 levels. That would also be 15 per cent below the current commitment under the Kyoto Protocol.

But as New Zealand’s gross emissions are 24 per cent above 1990 levels, such a target would be a cut of nearly a third from where we are now.

Yes. This is talking gross emissions and a cut of a third in ten years is not some wimpy cop out but bloody ambitious. Some say it is not so hard as what counts is net emissions. Not quite that simple though. Apart from the fact by 2020 gross and net emissions may be similiar, as I understand it our target is always in gross emissions, but the amount we will have to pay will be based on net emissions. In other words the rest of the world expects us to actually cut emissions, not just plant trees.

It would be the equivalent of eliminating, within 10 years, all emissions from transport and electricity generation, and then some. Transport accounts for 20 per cent of national emissions, the electricity sector 9 per cent.

That is for a target of 15% below 1990. Remember that when the Greens claim anything less than 40% is a cop out.

“The nightmare for the Government is that even what looks like a very modest target is incredibly challenging, because we are starting 24 per cent behind the eight ball,” says Minister Nick Smith.

Thanks Helen. Despite her carbon neutral rhetoric, emissions grew faster in NZ under Clark than in the US under Bush, compared to 1990 levels.

There are three ways New Zealand can meet its target: physically reducing emissions within the country, expanding the forest area or buying carbon credits on the international market – which represent emissions reductions which have occurred somewhere else in the world.

All three methods cost money. How much is educated guesswork: all the economic modelling tells us is that the more ambitious the target and the higher the international carbon price, the greater the cost will be.

Yep. The greater all the targets are for reduction, the higher the price per unit and hence the price consumers and businesses will pay in NZ.

Satellite and aerial mapping has confirmed an increase of 566,000ha in the area of plantation forest, which the Government expects will just about cover the increase in gross emissions over the same period.

But most of those trees were already in the ground when the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997.

Net afforestation has collapsed since then, and the trees planted in the 1990s will be ready for harvest in the 2020s, turning the forestry sector from a net sink for carbon into a net source.

This is why reliance on our net emissions being at 1990 levels is little comfort for the 2020 target.

Unless, that is, the rules for counting forest emissions are changed. At the moment the carbon sequestered in trees is deemed to be all released to the atmosphere when the tree is felled, which is nonsense if it is used for building timber.

New Zealand is seeking a number of changes to the rules relating to LULUCF (land use, land use change and forestry). Groser said that within the range of environmentally credible or defensible rules the difference between the best and worst case outcomes on the rules from a New Zealand perspective could swing the country’s emissions by as much as 70 per cent. The rules will not be finally decided at Copenhagen.

Those potential rule changes are of huge significance.

Labour’s climate change spokesman says it is better to be bold than timid.

“We will be a target-taker, let’s face it, when we get to the negotiations. The benefit about being bold in setting a target now is that it will obviously be provisional given that we are going into negotiations and we will effectively be given a target by bigger players.

With all respects to Charles this is a pretty stupid strategy. As he points out there will be international negotiations and in those negotiations big players will try and push up what our target should be. Now knowing this is likely to happen, why would you go in with a target already at the top end of what is possible, as this then removes any flexibility from the negotiations. Sure our initial negotiating target has to be credible, but this talk of boldness (and note Labour refuse to say what target they support) is silly fluff. Ask any negotiator if your starting bid should ever be your final position.

Tags: , , ,

93 Responses to “Fallow on 2020 target”

  1. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,746 comments) says:

    When was Labour bold in anything it did in the last nine years? It spent its last term in office exclusively fighting fires and warming the treasury benches in preparation for handing them over to National. Nine years of wasted opportunities. That is indeed “Kiwi as”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. wreck1080 (3,881 comments) says:

    Of course, this will increase relative poverty levels.

    Simple fact, reducing carbon emissions will mean much more expensive food, power, cars, rent, and so on.

    This is one of those hard questions , do you kill off a few people now (there will be less money for health) to save a lot of people later.

    Of course, that is assuming the global warming alarmists are right, and I don’t trust them. Just a few years ago these people were saying we are headed for another ice age.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Brian Smaller (4,012 comments) says:

    Just a few years ago these people were saying we are headed for another ice age.

    They may well be right – world wide temperatures are dropping.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    gee..!..dpf..!

    you left the animals out..

    http://whoar.co.nz/2009/veganisms-essential-role-in-preventing-an-unprecedented-global-catastrophe/

    “..Synopsis: The world is rapidly approaching an unprecedented catastrophe from global climate change and other environmental threats..

    .. and a major societal shift to plant-based (vegan) diets is an essential part of the necessary responses to avoid that catastrophe.

    Since methane emitted by farmed animals is in the atmosphere for less than 20 years ..

    .. and is 72 times as potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide during that time..

    .. reducing the number of farmed animals would have a major, rapid effect in reducing climate change.

    A major shift to plant-centered diets would have many other benefits, including reducing diseases, hunger, water and energy shortages, rapid species extinction, water pollution, destruction of rainforests and other valuable habitats and soil erosion and depletion.

    Global catastrophe or sustainable future?

    It will depend largely on our food choices!

    It may seem naïve to argue that dietary shifts can make a major difference in responding to today’s many crises..

    .. but if we stopped raising the current 60 billion farmed animals that are slaughtered annually worldwide..

    .. it would make a tremendous difference with regard to many, if not all, of today’s current problems..”

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Angus (536 comments) says:

    Screw the veganism, barbecued animals taste good. Too many veges make you fart excessively and as a result, worsens the methane problem. Studies have clearly shown that too many phyto-chemicals, especially those that are inhaled, have a detrimental effect on synaptic performance; and before you know it, Rage Against The Machine are on the turntable, you’re not going to work and you’re voting for the Greens.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    More cheerleading for luddites.

    Pass.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    definition of luddite:..(for murray..)

    one who believes the future is not here..and looks to the past to just continue/repeat..

    murray..how can this not be you..?

    ..and all he other deniers..

    i mean..it is an ironic-jolt..

    ..that the perjorative used against the early-warners of the shit we now face..

    ..now defines those who both used that term..and have now become it..

    (still waiting/hoping for the bubble to re-inflate there..?..murray..?

    ..good luck with that..!..eh..?)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. mavxp (479 comments) says:

    NZ = very small economy very far away from markets. There is no way in hell we can ever make NZ Inc. run “carbon neutral”, let alone meet Kyoto without becoming a third world cesspit. So £uck it. Lets just sell to the asians and australians and forget kyoto. Let the Chilians and Saffa’s sell their wine to Europe and play the carbon credit game, mothball gas turbines and build nuclear instead. Good luck to them. Let’s be sensible about what we can achieve and go for ENERGY EFFICIENCY. This will at least lead to productivity gains and increased quality of living for all NZers and the environment to boot.

    When there are stupid rules such as considering felled forrestry timber as CO2, cow farts as anthropogenic greenhouse gases, and Chinese/ Indian CO2 as exempt, then I suggest we don’t play the game. If we *must* play, then let us officially demote ourselves to “developing nation” status so we dont have to ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Oh no, I don’t have the approval of the parasitic drug addict armed offender, what will I do?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    great debating skills there..murray..

    you don’t think it’s a tad lazy/anti-intellectual..to just fall back on the ad hominem..?

    ..all the time..?

    you seem unable to formulate any counter to any counter-argument..

    ..is that ‘cos of what must not be spoken about..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Never wrestle with a pig. you both get covered in shit and the pig likes it.

    Why would I even consider “debating” with a clearly mentally impared idividual whose opinion is of negative value to me? You are an obnoxious self impressed creep with no moral value whose only contribution to the rest of us would be absence.

    You have no claim to any serious attention from anyone other than a clinical psychologist. Your obsessions are your problems, not mine.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. andrei (2,568 comments) says:

    Labour’s climate change spokesman Charles Chauvel says it is better to be bold than timid.

    He is right we do need to be bold. We need to stand up and call all of this BS for what it is total and utter crap.

    Who is the hero in the old tale of the Emperor’s new clothes – the sycophants who went along with the BS despite the evidence of their own eyes or the little boy who called it for what it was?

    Of course we know where Mr Chauvel stands on this, he is not with the little boy but one of the loudest cheerleaders of the fiction that the emperor isn’t naked. A fool in other words or else a conman.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Ross Nixon (559 comments) says:

    I don’t understand why our leaders believe the AGW/CC hoax. It doesn’t take much study to discover that it is a total scam.
    Is there something we don’t know?

    Do our leaders have something pointed at their backs?
    UN staff holding guns? Globalist financiers with large bundles of cash?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    q.e.d..

    ..eh murray..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    yes ross..it’s all just a big conspiracy..

    ..all just to ‘get at’ you..

    ..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Manolo (13,571 comments) says:

    “Labour’s climate change spokesman Charles Chauvel says it is better to be bold than timid.”

    Great words from that distinguished scientist Charles Chauvel, known for his in-depth comments and profound knowledge of the subject.

    So, why doesn’t he advocate the same approach in other areas, say welfare reform?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. bjchip (67 comments) says:

    As usual, missing the point.

    as I understand it our target is always in gross emissions

    What makes you think this DPF? As far as the planet’s atmosphere is concerned the NET emissions are what is important. Please clarify the source of your confusion, for it certainly didn’t come from the Green side of the debate.

    Yep. The greater all the targets are for reduction, the higher the price per unit and hence the price consumers and businesses will pay in NZ.

    Globally DPF, Globally. Greens aren’t asking NZ to make a unilateral commitment. So there will be no RELATIVE disadvantage taken for such reductions.

    Despite her carbon neutral rhetoric, emissions grew faster in NZ under Clark than in the US under Bush, compared to 1990 levels.

    A price paid for NOT having Greens in government. Winston First was more acceptable… and Labor was not much different from a National government in drag.

    As he points out there will be international negotiations and in those negotiations big players will try and push up what our target should be

    What causes you to believe this? The US is talking about 18%, the EU in general, 30% tops. Where do you dream this up DPF? It isn’t reflected in any of the news or official announcements, it just appears in your post like some sort of revelation.

    There’s no way that the USA or the EU or Russia are going to be pushing this higher. The common goal agreed on will be just that, a common goal, and we don’t have any reason to go higher and we can, on current information, expect it to be significantly lower.

    In other words DPF, show me why I should not believe you are wrong or simply making stuff up.

    BJ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. bjchip (67 comments) says:

    Ross

    I suggest that you read Gareth Morgan’s book – “Poles Apart”.

    http://www.thenile.co.nz/books/John-McCrystal/Poles-Apart/9781869790455/

    BJ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. TCrwdb (242 comments) says:

    Phil – where is the EVIDENCE of AGW?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. jcuknz (704 comments) says:

    Since we live in a country where a good proportion of the ecconomy is still in the hands of private investors who need to turn at least a small profit to justify their involvement, I see it as stupid politicing that Labour took away the carbon credits from the timber industry and thus stimmied the continual fresh planting of trees the country needs to help cope with the problem which will continue after 2020. I have no investment in this sector and glad I didn’t get taken in by Labour theivery but the result is a tragic shame from the country’s point of view.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. bjchip (67 comments) says:

    There is no way in hell we can ever make NZ Inc. run “carbon neutral”, let alone meet Kyoto without becoming a third world cesspit.

    I don’t think you are even close on this. NZ has better renewable energy resources than just about anyone on the planet. On a per-capita basis we have it all. So if we want to do it, it isn’t that hard.

    Note that I do not accept that we should lumber our agriculture with goals in excess of the other players, but I should point out that the US and other country’s farmers would LOVE to have an excuse to slap a carbon tariff on our farm exports… which makes it rather unproductive for us to ignore our responsibilities.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Fletch (6,294 comments) says:

    I’m sorry, but there’s just too much evidence out there now that says human cause climate change is a myth. The computer
    models are flawed, and the conmen in charge won’t let their data be peer reviewed. TAking what data there is – when you look back it doesn’t predict what actually happened. It’s all PC emotional blackmail.

    DPF,I am interested as to where you stand on this. I don’t agree with everything you blog but I know you’re no dummy. Do you agree with anthropogenic global warming?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. bjchip (67 comments) says:

    TCrwdb

    You can start by reading Gareth’s book as well.

    I can provide more information myself if necessary.

    BJ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. bjchip (67 comments) says:

    …but there’s just too much evidence out there now that says human cause climate change is a myth. The computer
    models are flawed, and the conmen in charge won’t let their data be peer reviewed

    The evidence you speak of is not all well informed Fletch. I know you THINK it is truth, but the reality is that the people who are talking about this are not all speaking truthfully or without their own motives. I have climateaudit on my hotlinks, but most of the others are not worth the time to read.

    BJ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    I can provide more information myself if necessary.

    BJ

    But you don’t have a clue what your talking about BJ

    Globally DPF, Globally. Greens aren’t asking NZ to make a unilateral commitment. So there will be no RELATIVE disadvantage taken for such reductions.

    You really believe this? If you do you’re stupid.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. backster (2,150 comments) says:

    In any case we will need to align our policies with our Aussie Cuzzies. I think that they intend a 4% cut in their emissions by 2020 and perhaps Nick should aim for 3%.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. the deity formerly known as nigel6888 (852 comments) says:

    you forget DPF, once we have destroyed the productive sector, we will all be dependent on government handouts, and the socialist paradise will have been achieved.

    the tiny problem that there will be nothing to distribute is a feature not a bug, we will finally have eradicated income inequality.

    sorry if you wanted warmth in that barrack room, or health care, but never mind, i am sure the Cubans will send doctors as part of their humanitarian outreach.

    of course for those who join the “people’s corps” there will be abundant food, power and perks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. bjchip (67 comments) says:

    Ross

    I will read Wishart when I can get it from the library. Nor am I apt to read it completely as I have a policy of stopping once the count of false statements gets into double digits. The problem is that there is NO refutation of the anthropomorphic influence that actually stands up. If there were I am pretty sure I would know.

    I scanned Wishart’s book quickly in a bookstore and saw nothing new at all. Like playing whack-a-mole the arguments get recycled and pop back up and the mistakes made get exposed. I spotted 3 such in less then 3 minutes. I don’t have high expectations.

    Thanks for calling my attention to climatedebatedaily. Looks like a good site for the non-scientific The science isn’t however, decided by debating. Debating stuff is the NZ disease IMHO, look at Transmission Gully – 25 years of talk. Eventually it WILL be built.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. bjchip (67 comments) says:

    But you don’t have a clue what your talking about BJ

    Hmmm.. what do you imagine you know about me to be saying this? If you have a specific question about the science I have directed you to a reasonable resource. If you want to ask it here I might come back and answer… this isn’t a place I feel a NEED to visit.


    Greens aren’t asking NZ to make a unilateral commitment. So there will be no RELATIVE disadvantage taken for such reductions.

    You really believe this? If you do you’re stupid.

    Greens have no policy on killing the productive sector, contrary to the propaganda provided here by so many. Making erroneous statements about me only indicates your own knowledge challenged state.

    BJ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Manolo (13,571 comments) says:

    “Greens have no policy on killing the productive sector, contrary to the propaganda provided here by so many.”

    Now pull the other one.

    What about Green Party’s policy against road construction? Its abhorrence of cars and other forms of private transport? Its support of 40% reduction of emissions and full compliance with Kyoto protocol? Its tax policies on productive sectors of New Zealand society ? Its fierce opposition to globalisation and most, if not all, foreign investment? Its social engineering policies and willingness to dictate what we eat, drink and consume? Its free-for-all approach to welfare?

    Those above are just a few examples.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    Hmmm.. what do you imagine you know about me to be saying this?

    I gave an example in my post. Now I think you are even more stupid.

    If you want to ask it here I might come back and answer… this isn’t a place I feel a NEED to visit.

    Wow, thank you for gracing us with your presence.

    What ended the ice ages? Empirical data is prefered to conjecture.

    Making erroneous statements about me only indicates your own knowledge challenged state.

    Hmmm.. what do you imagine you know about me to be saying this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. LabourDoesntWork (287 comments) says:

    Meanwhile in the real world…

    China’s three biggest power firms pollute more than the whole of Britain: report
    http://alturl.com/9p43

    China gets a pass and we don’t? I guess that’s the cost of freedom.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    “I will read Wishart when I can get it from the library. ”

    Not good enough BJ, I have been hounding you for months to read the very condemning evidence in “Air Con”, are you scared of what you may find?
    It is a well written book with no hidden Chistian agenda, your reliance on Gareth’s debunking (from “Hot Topic”) of the book is not very fair to the content of the book.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Viking2 (11,412 comments) says:

    We’re on to it. We just cannot have all the pinko/greenie soy drinkers polluting the world with their flatelence.
    NZer’s leading the research.

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/farming/2709991/Taking-the-wind-out-of-soy-milk-drinkers

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Gumby (22 comments) says:

    I find the whole global warming / carbon is bad / naughty humans approach to be ignorant and short sighted. It reeks of arrogance to think that little old us has a substantive effect on such large complex systems (Earth / Sun).

    A better long term strategy is to consider off-world options. If we continue to tie our future to a single planet then we expose ourselves to risks in a number of areas. Not that a technological solution is round the corner but we have to start protecting our future.

    Science-fantasy or the stone cold truth?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Banana Llama (1,043 comments) says:

    I tend to agree Gumby, i am of the opinion it could be done within a generation it would just require a rethink of priorities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Manolo (13,571 comments) says:

    “And a major societal shift to plant-based (vegan) diets is an essential part of the necessary responses”

    As P.T. Barnum said:a sucker is born every minute (nowadays, it should be every second.”)

    Go away, you lazy bludger.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    gumby and banana..

    ‘space’..eh..?

    and gumby first argues there is no global warming..

    ..and then in the next breath..

    ..advocates we all hop in spaceships..(going where exactly darling..?..)..

    ..and escape the global warming..(that dosen’t exist..)

    brilliant..!

    ..why don’t you both form a club/support group..?

    ..get manolo..

    …that’ll make three of you..

    ..eh..?

    the deeply confused..the deranged…and the denier..

    (you could all take turns at being each..eh..?..)

    have camp-outs..and stuff..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Alan Wilkinson (1,871 comments) says:

    As I’ve said before, the accounting, the science, the economics and the politics of the ETS are all crap. The whole edifice will collapse long, long before 2020. Who gives a toss?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Banana Llama (1,043 comments) says:

    We could just shoot you in the head then dump you in the Tasman Philu, that would be time better spent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Johnboy (16,059 comments) says:

    There is f–all global warming in bloody Wainui. I have gone through 5m of logs already since winter started and still no end of it!!

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

    Could someone please explain why New Zealand journalists continue to maintain the fiction that half of our GHG emissions come from our agriculture (ie pastoral farming of ruminants) when the US, Canada, and now Australia, have all decided that pastoral farming is a mitigator of GHG and better than forests because it is an ongoing cycle.
    Furthermore, their soil scientists acknowledge that we are superior carbon capturers because we have true perennial grasses and we grass feed our animals for 365 days a year. And they get some of their Greenie points by using Zero Till technology developed here at Massey University by Dr Baker.
    Why do they want to punish our major export earner? Our competitors recognise we are the worlds best carbon sequesterors using pastoral farming and yet we are determined to punish ourselves. Surely I am not the only columnist in the country doing the basic research into what our competitors are doing?

    What is this madness?
    All we need to do to improve our performance is to increase the depth of our topsoil yet everyone rabbits on about modifying the bacteria in our ruminants stomachs. What about the same bacteria that generate methane in wetlands, and in the rain forests, and in the rice paddies, and of course in mangrove swamps?

    We will soon be the laughing stock for treating our ruminant stock as Kyoto liabilities instead of Carbon Trading assets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Alan Wilkinson (1,871 comments) says:

    Owen, Fallon is incompetent. At any challenge he resorts to saying we have to do it anyway for trade PR purposes.

    That’s the same sort of pontificating drivel we get from Oram.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    still spinning there..eh owen..?

    still playing that denier card..?

    “..Since methane emitted by farmed animals is in the atmosphere for less than 20 years ..

    .. and is 72 times as potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide during that time..

    .. reducing the number of farmed animals would have a major, rapid effect in reducing climate change..”

    where is that ‘wrong’/incorrect..?

    ..owen..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Patrick Starr (3,674 comments) says:

    Farmed herbivores may fart more but serve a huge benefit to society.
    …..if AGW is even close we should perhaps start with a ban on vegans that serve no benefit to society at all

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Chthoniid (2,043 comments) says:

    We will soon be the laughing stock for treating our ruminant stock as Kyoto liabilities instead of Carbon Trading assets.

    How about we reclass all our farmed animals as feral and wild instead? That way each farm becomes a miniature nature reserve. And as under the Kyoto rules, wild animals (white deer in the US, antelopes in Africa) don’t count towards GHG emission, our pastoral emissions will drop to zero by accounting fiat?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. TCrwdb (242 comments) says:

    bjchip – have you ever wondered why a finance guru has decided to support AGW? What’s in it for him?

    There is NO EVIDENCE for AGW.

    Ever heard of the Medieval Warming Period? Probably not as it has been expunged from the ‘hockey stick’ chart.

    Why have global temperatures DECREASED over the last 10 years?
    Why do the warmist advocates keep fiddling the data?

    AGW is a fundamentalist religion if I ever saw one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. andrei (2,568 comments) says:

    You know Chthoniid its a pity there were no greenies around in the Archeozoic to put whine about the how the early photosynthesizers were screwing up the planet by adding a dangerous gas Oxygen to the atmosphere, a gas not naturally occurring in the healthy methane, ammonia and Carbon dioxide mixture that prevailed then.

    Without oxygen of course we wouldn’t have to worry about forest fires – not because oxygen is necessary for combustion, which it is of course but because there wouldn’t be any forests or greenies for that matter to worry about them

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

    philu, I know your neurons are not well connected but how do you explain the fact that methane concentrations are falling anyhow?
    And how do you explain the fact that the lowest concentrations of methane are over Australia and New Zealand and the highest concentrations are over the rain forests of Brazil, over the frozen jungles of Siberia and over the the rice paddies of Australia.

    Methane turns into CO2 after a few years and is absorbed by plants to produce food for vegetarians. What is your problem?

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

    Owen, don’t confuse the lad, God knows he has enough problems all ready.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Go figure (6 comments) says:

    That is for a target of 15% below 1990.

    The stupid Nats are counting on just the ETS to deliver their target. No complementary measures whatsoever. That’s why their target is so pathetic.

    Remember that when the Greens claim anything less than 40% is a cop out.

    The Greens have never said this and won’t. Get your facts right at least.

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

    Well, so long and thanks for all the laughs. The string developed here epitomises the deep thinking, sound research and open-mindedness I’ve come to admire so much in New Zealanders. With young idealists like you, I am sure we are in great shape too deal with whatever the future may throw at us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. bjchip (67 comments) says:

    What about Green Party’s policy against road construction? Its abhorrence of cars and other forms of private transport? Its support of 40% reduction of emissions and full compliance with Kyoto protocol? Its tax policies on productive sectors of New Zealand society ? Its fierce opposition to globalisation and most, if not all, foreign investment? Its social engineering policies and willingness to dictate what we eat, drink and consume? Its free-for-all approach to welfare?

    The Greens oppose road construction being preferred to public transit. Not all roads.

    Abhorrence of cars? No, just not a complete dependency on them.

    The 40% reduction in Carbon isn’t a policy aimed at the productive sector, it is aimed at CO2 emissions. If you don’t understand the difference I am not surprised. Misinformation is the only type of information I find here. Nor is 40% the Green policy.

    Do you even know what the Greens tax policies are? Taxing pollution instead of income isn’t exactly the same as taxing productive industries.

    I take it you like foreign ownership and foreign profits being extracted from your labors. People who take pleasure in their pocket being picked will lose control of themselves in the current financial environment.

    Social engineering doesn’t have anything to do with the productive sector of the economy. It is irrelevant to the argument at hand and I am not inclined to defend that wing of the party in any case.

    BJ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    People who take pleasure in their pocket being picked will lose control of themselves in the current financial environment.

    You really don’t make alot of sense

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. bjchip (67 comments) says:

    Sonny

    What ended the Ice Ages is GENERALLY hypothesized to have been solar activity owing to the Milankovitch cycle which triggered initial warming… which released CO2 and then H20 which amplified the warming. The end of the Ice Age took some 6000 years, and the rise in CO2 lags the start of that warming by 800 at most. This has been covered by every elementary discussion of climate change in the history of the subject and represents a simple error in logic.

    The fact that something happened in a certain order for certain causes without human influence does not invalidate the theory that human influence has altered the order and the cause. You can’t logically make that argument.

    Your previous post did NOT give an example, contrary to your assertion. You insulted my abilities without knowing a blessed thing about who I am. That alone is evidence of your own problem. I didn’t make any observation about you until you decided to display that problem.

    BJ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    bj,

    If you leave out the ridiculousness of anthropogenic climate catastrophe and the absurdity of measuring carbon emissions.

    Emissions trading schemes or substantial carbon taxes are an incredibly backwards reaction to the problem. If you penalise a country financially for being higher emitters you are making it harder and harder for them to do something about it.

    Bjorn Lomberg suggests the costs of ETSchemes are $500 trillion dollars over I don’t know how long. Obama just gave out $1 trillion dollars to his backers. If instead, just $500 billion or so was put towards research and development for abrupt means to alter the climate, we could cool the climate as required within a couple of years.

    Some more direct and effective solutions include:
    Objects in space that can be brought between the sun and earth to cool as necessary
    Seed the upper atmosphere with SO2 a per volcanic eruptions
    Fertilise the plankton in the oceans
    Seeding and dispersing clouds

    In 50 years time, if there ever was a problem with the climate, we will be able to do something about it within a couple of years. Those people who support destroying wealth before their hypothesis is verified, will have blood on their hands for ignoring jobs, health, and trade today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. bjchip (67 comments) says:

    Gumby

    Strangely the Green blog contains the Cheap-Access-To-Space theme as a potential solution in many of the threads. We agree that it would resolve many of the problems we face.

    You may shudder at the company you are keeping,… though some members are more enthusiastic than others. I happen to like it. As an engineer it is my first choice. Getting everyone in the world to agree to tighten their belts and do something difficult is unprecedented in human history and IMHO unlikely given human psychology. It is the only choice I see that does not involve going into space however, so I make both arguments.

    I have suggested it to Dr. Smith as something to bring up in negotiations with the people who actually have space programs. I have also suggested it to most of those people.

    This however, doesn’t answer the problem of what we should plan to do or try to do if they aren’t listening.

    If you want to have an impact in this respect, please send a message to Dr Smith, and to anyone else you can reach. The more such messages are received, the more likely they will pay attention.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    Alarmist Claptrap. If we are approaching tipping point, and things are only going to get worse. !/2 the Worlds population to be displaced by flood water etc. etc.

    Why then is the World building more Aircraft?
    More Airport Terminals?
    Allowing new products to be produced that use electricity
    Allowing flying at all
    Shipping at all
    Road Transport at all
    Over Population
    etc etc.

    All these odious activities are apparently putting our very existence at risk.

    We should surely revert to a total Agrarian Economy. No Machines. No Power Production. No Vehicles. Subsistence Farming only. ETC ETC.

    Only then, and by using just one toilet paper square per sitting (Thanks Cheryl!) can we save the Planet.

    Screw Carbon Trading and Tax, and Control Orders. Bet AGW doesn’t have the same appeal to the World Wide Communist Brotherhood when that happens and they can’t feast from the Public Purse as we would all be truly in the same boat.

    True Equality, no more Politics, no more Blogging, no more Seminars, no more UN!!

    Can someone sell me a Ploughshare?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    GENERALLY hypothesized to have been solar activity owing to the Milankovitch cycle which triggered initial warming… which released CO2 and then H20 which amplified the warming. The end of the Ice Age took some 6000 years, and the rise in CO2 lags the start of that warming by 800 at most.

    So after 10 degrees of warming from ice age to optimal climate, supposedly driven by the spiralling effect of CO2 release (and we all know that the effects are stronger to begin with as more additional CO2 adds diminshing forcings), what reversed the warming into sudden cooling?

    You have mentioned one factor of Milankovitch cycles, how is this known to be the cause beyond being a popular suggestion around the coffee table at universities? What empirical data exists beyond archaelogical temperature records and the extrapolation of these into the future? How is it known that there are not other contributing forces in the cycles in and out of the ice ages that has had the Earth varying between no polar ice caps and polar bears in the mediterranean?

    you insulted my abilities without knowing a blessed thing about who I am. That alone is evidence of your own problem. I didn’t make any observation about you until you decided to display that problem.

    Get over yourself. You happen to be spouting among the most corrupt philosophies of our time.

    The sad thing is, people like yourself will do it all over again once global warming a distant memory, with the next imaginary plague.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. bjchip (67 comments) says:

    Sonny

    You are fine with the first one. The idea of altering the insolation is an old one and we want CATS to do it. That has always been a first choice. The other 3 involve screwing with the atmosphere or the hyrdosphere in ways that almost guarantee unintended consequences with entirely unknown penalties for failure and no certainty of success.

    This country does not do space exploration. The question on offer is the question of what target the planet should aim at, and it assumes that there is no space-based answer to save our butts. You want that answer used write to the minister, write to the White-House, write to the President of Russia, write to the Chinese and write to the Chancellor of Germany. I am doing that. Have been doing it for a long time.

    As for penalizing people for being high emitters… the point to it is that there has to be a price put on the commons. If you regard the commons as being the oceans and the air and the fresh water supply… damaging those things has a price and the price has to be sufficient to encourage people to preserve those things.

    The planet is the commons in this case and the destruction of its habitability has to be regarded as the cost of those excessive emissions.

    Lomborg says 500 trillion? Could you provide a link to this outrageous number? I haven’t seen it on his site or in fact anywhere in the press. I regard Lomborg’s work as… faulty for the most part, but I have to see how he derives a number like that before I try to figure out where he makes the mistakes.

    Obama didn’t give away a trillion to the banks. He’s signed up for something close to a total of 23 trillion in loan guarantees and recovery stimulus packages. It wouldn’t have mattered which party was in power there, the same result would be achieved as the two branches of the wealth party are wholly owned by Goldman-Sachs-The-Planet and Just-Pay-Morgan.

    Ppphhht!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. bjchip (67 comments) says:

    what reversed the warming into sudden cooling

    You have no evidence of any significant change in the trend. Sudden cooling? You are looking at a decade and even then you have to be careful where you pick your end points. Last year was a la-nina, and the bottom half of the 11 year solar cycle, and this year the solar cycle is coming up and the el-nino is showing up as well. The short time frame ENSO effects are much larger than the trend line about which they oscillate, but it is the trend that is important in AGW. Something that Bob Carter doesn’t seem to understand at all.

    I mentioned the Milankovitch cycle as one of the theories on offer. It is certainly an effect but is it a sufficient effect? I confess to not even knowing what you are asking for. You want someone to tell you definitively what happened to the climate 12000 – 18000 years ago? No scientist pretends to know that. I don’t pretend to know that. It does little to answer the question about what is happening in this century and what happened in the last.

    We have evidence and we have theories. That’s what science is about. You want certainty? Talk to your priest. He may be dead wrong but you can’t fault his certainty.

    What we have right now is a need to work out what action to take in the face of uncertainty, with some dire consequences if we get it wrong.

    A 40% target going into the negotiations pushes at the big boys to raise their game. It will probably get watered down but from 40% we can negotiate down. 25% could scrape by… the Greens target is 30%

    The assumption that someone won’t build CATS has to be built into the play. We can’t count on the miracle cure appearing, or on the continued ability to deliver it if things go to custard. If we had the technology in hand, or could be sure it will be built this time ( the last effort was dropped at about 90% completion), I wouldn’t be arguing here.

    “There is no planet B” and I DO have a religion…. I worship the implacable and omnipotent deity Murphy. It doesn’t matter how simple and obvious it is. Things WILL get screwed up.

    BJ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. bjchip (67 comments) says:

    In 50 years time, if there ever was a problem with the climate, we will be able to do something about it within a couple of years.

    I would like to hope so, but I don’t perceive the impacts as being as easily overcome.

    The most likely candidates to develop CATS speak Chinese. They will be in deep trouble if the food supply is affected worst and first. What sort of instability if they cannot feed their people?

    The USA? So deep in debt that the bubbles being blown are starting to look like whale farts?

    Maybe Russia can rebuild its space program. Maybe the EU can actually figure out how to do it.

    Climate change will bring droughts and floods and cyclones first… the tide will be a lagging indicator.

    When people who are better armed than fed get together… there’s a technical term for it… war.

    That can happen too. I can’t count on a magical answer from the future or on the future having the technical means to implement it. Leaving problems like this to my children ( Hi Son… solve this problem or die) isn’t an answer for me.

    Murphy was an optimist.
    I’m not.
    BJ

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    BJ,

    There point is there are many ideas, as with most problems. When we need to do something about it we can, and pissing around with unmeasurable emmission levels in the meantime will be disastrous.

    I am more concerned about these things for wether or not we will be able to get through the coming ice age.

    The question on offer is the question of what target the planet should aim at

    This is ridiculous arrogance.

    The earths climate is a dynamic, complex system. We observe it, and react to it. Attempting to control it is foolhardy and will just create bigger, unforeseen (by close minded environmentalists) consequences.

    This country does not do space exploration.

    Precisely, we grow cows in exchange for other countries to do that. Can you not see why (incorrectly measured) emissions trading is so dumb?

    If you regard the commons as being the oceans and the air and the fresh water supply… damaging those things has a price and the price has to be sufficient to encourage people to preserve those things.

    Bollocks. Its dirt, its air, its salty water, it will never be bothered by us. If anything we should be paid for fertilising it when we take a piss.

    Lomborg says 500 trillion? Could you provide a link to this outrageous number? I haven’t seen it on his site or in fact anywhere in the press. I regard Lomborg’s work as… faulty for the most part

    I heard it said by someone in a speech somewhere, it must be opportunity cost over an extended time period. What are your reasons for finding Lombard’s work faulty? Have you been running your own economic forecasting? Why do you trust Hansen et als figures but not Lombard’s?

    It wouldn’t have mattered which party was in power there

    Pathetic whitewash. Bush was an overspending, big government conservative, and lost the support of fiscal conservatives sometime ago. Obama is 10 times worse, this does not prove that another individual would not do better. Obama is inexperienced, weak-kneed, and more indebted to big money donors than any previous President. I sure hope he grows a spine before he sells every American down the river.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    Sudden cooling? You are looking at a decade and even then you have to be careful where you pick your end points.

    A was talking about the sudden cooling at the end of the optimal warm periods that led into the ice ages. A time when increasing CO2 and all its forcings, were outdone by some overwhelming cooling forces.

    You want someone to tell you definitively what happened to the climate 12000 – 18000 years ago? No scientist pretends to know that. I don’t pretend to know that.

    Precisely. No scientist understands the major effects on our climate. Now piss off with your Anthropogenic Climate Catastrophe.

    We have evidence and we have theories. That’s what science is about. You want certainty? Talk to your priest.

    Damn right I want certainty before you take $1 dollar off me.

    You can hypothesise all you like, but until you have empirical data that supports the hypothesis, the very idea of demanding resources be taken from peoples livelihoods, and degrading their health, education, and prosperity, is morally repugnant.

    A 40% target going into the negotiations pushes at the big boys to raise their game

    “There is no planet B” and I DO have a religion…. I worship the implacable and omnipotent deity Murphy. It doesn’t matter how simple and obvious it is. Things WILL get screwed up.

    I am totally wasting my time here

    What we have right now is a need to work out what action to take in the face of uncertainty, with some dire consequences if we get it wrong.

    Ok, take a deep breath. The Earth’s mean temperature generally moves over a 10 degree range between the ice ages and the optimum climate, the mean temperature has risen 0.6 degrees in the past century and we’re not yet at the optimum.

    It’s gonna be ok.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Cerium (23,474 comments) says:

    Is it gonna be ok? Does anyone really know? Either way?

    What if the continuing over population does have an effect? What if the increasing pollution has an effect. And the deforestation, and the depletion of resources? And what if all these effects don’t balance each other out? What if things deteriorate. And what if just some of the 90% of climate scientists who think there could be some climate change have got it at least partly right? What if some of the computer models turn out to be reasonably accurate predictors? What if ice cover reduction reduces, there is accelerated tundra release of greenhouse gases?

    What if sun activity increases at the same time and adds to the warming effect?

    It’s a possibility isn’t it? Saying no, there is nothing, total denial, really is flat earth type behaviour. It must be a matter of how much? Is it weighted in one direction? And can we do anything about it? Surely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Ross Nixon (559 comments) says:

    Cerium, it is good to take precautions isn’t it?
    In that case, for a mere $6000 per year, I will insure your house against a total loss caused by a direct hit of a meteorite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. andrei (2,568 comments) says:

    Is it gonna be ok? Does anyone really know? Either way?
    Yes they do Cerium – the human race is ultimately doomed to extinction – what nobody knows is when or how but it is unavoidable in exactly the same way your personal mortality is unavoidable.

    What if ………

    There are an uncountable number of what ifs… Some more likely than others. When catastrophe strikes it is not uncommon for it to be totally unforeseen or something not on the radar of most.

    Are you loosing any sleep over the Central north Island volcanic plateau? What if it explodes the way it did 1600 years ago? Or even more dramatically the way it did 25,000 years ago.

    Either way for us in New Zealand it will mean a huge death toll and very hard times for the survivors while globally there would be dramatic cooling with attendant crop failures, hunger etc.

    What are we going to do about it? How can we prevent it happening?

    Its funny how you use the term flat earthers to describe the realists when it is you who are exhibiting this behaviour.

    In reality it is technology and wealth that helps us when disaster strikes and knocking both back will hasten our extinction not postpone it let alone defer it forever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    For the AGW crazies!!

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/5955955/Weather-records-are-a-state-secret.html

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

    Isn’t it strange.
    Everyone loves to hate the banks and the Wall Street traders for causing the current financial crisis as a result of their financing the housing bubble driven by Smart Growth planners.
    At least the houses were a real asset and now that the bubble has burst houses are becoming affordable in those markets where Smart Growth has either not taken hold or has now been abandoned..
    But now, presumably in order to give something else to the bankers and financiers to justify their bonuses, Governments (who started the housing bubble and the excess leanding) are now creating a multi trillion dollar market in Hot Air. This is a remarkable market where both buyer and seller have an incentive to write fraudulent contracts.
    Unlike housing, when this bubble bursts there will be no residual value.
    When people talk about the risk of doing nothing they never ponder the risk of a second global financial crisis following so hard on the heels of this one. And as well as the carbon price falling to zero so will all those investments in wind farms and tidal power stations and other generation plants all dependent on subsidy..

    And while we are talking about foolishness why do the Greens favour public transport over the private fleet when public transport uses more energy per passenger mile than the private fleet?
    And the private fleet is improving in energy efficiency by the day.

    They also seem to overlook the fact that as they dump more trains on the Auckland heavy rail system for a few commuters (who mostly switch from more efficient buses) the extra occupancy displaces freight rail from the lines and that freight is now being carried on the roads by trucks.

    Isn’t sustainable life the bad joke of the century?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Cerium (23,474 comments) says:

    “Its funny how you use the term flat earthers to describe the realists “
    If they say we don’t have any potential problems they are not realists, they are in denial.

    If they say we have stuffed things up, we are doomed and there is nothing we can do about it they may in part be realists. Yes, humans are doomed, sometime we can’t continue. The question is whether we hasten our fate or not.

    Some of the claimed realists are backing their predictions on very little, and/or a few isolated climate scientists and a few isolated self appointed “experts”. Its a big call to make with a small case to back it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. andrei (2,568 comments) says:

    Cerium do you have any concept of the uncertainties involved here?

    The world has warmed since 1850 according to current methodologies by about one degree but the uncertainty in this number using the same methodology is more than one degree thus given the data we have it could have actually cooled during this period!

    Computer models are a joke – it was shown many years ago now that the type of computer models are so unstable with respect to the initial data that the results they produce do not differ markedly from results produced by a random number generator.

    Of course natural selection occurs amongst the competing models with only those that produce alarming results being pursued.

    Those that don’t are quietly dropped or tweaked until they do. Either way they do not provide information about the future in any meaningful sense.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Alan Wilkinson (1,871 comments) says:

    Cerium, bj,

    The question exercising my mind is how the relatively few intelligent sceptics can take proper financial advantage of the myriads of gullible “warmers”.

    Of course the most obvious way is to join the legions of “smart money” buying into rip-offs of taxpayers and consumers via the innumerable carbon-trading scams.

    My preference would be to do it more honestly, for example by simple wagers against the temperature forecasts by our mad climate modelers or the efficacy of ETS methods in actually reducing CO2 levels by an amount great enough to make the slightest difference. Unfortunately the timescale of these is unprofitably distant.

    Do you have any suggestions?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. jarbury (464 comments) says:

    So National’s committing to a 15% reduction in gross emissions?

    Great. We can make up the other 25% (to end up with the 40% reduction in net emissions that Greenpeace and others propose) by planting more trees.

    Or are they talking about a 15% net decrease? In which case why are you misleading everyone AGAIN DPF?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Lance (2,634 comments) says:

    IMHO
    Our lifestyle is based on gross and large amounts of energy consumption with piss poor conservation of energy in use. This lifestyle is simply unsustainable at its present rate, it’s great for now but make no mistake, it can’t carry on.
    Some say this has already screwed the environment, others that they know better and it’s all a load of crap this GW.
    It doesn’t matter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    When we burn away a few billion years of energy stored in hydrocarbons there ain’t no more. The only viable alternative to replace the phenomenal energy stored in the oceans of hydrocarbon chemical bonds we have been burning is the sun’s energy but that will require a colossal undertaking and a drastic reduction in our energy intensive lifestyles.
    Analysis of the alternatives such as biofuels, nuclear power etc etc etc all show it just won’t be enough to even scratch the surface of what we use now in hydrocarbon energy. Nuclear energy won’t save us in its present form, all other ethics issues aside, is their isn’t enough Uranium.

    In the mean time the best NZ can come up with is a bit of a 1/3 insulation subsidy. Bugger all in other words.
    So why are we talking about reductions of emissions of 40%, 15% or even 4% over the next 10-20 years. It won’t happen; no one REALLY wants to give up their lifestyle to reduce emissions to save the planet let alone think about the future generations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Alan Wilkinson (1,871 comments) says:

    Lance, the US has enough known natural gas reserves to last it another century at present consumption levels.

    We have enough coal to last us for many centuries. Australia has enough solar radiation to power half the world. Far from exhausting our incoming solar energy, the current claim is we are not using it fast enough so the world is heating up.

    We have no idea of what resources are available deeper into the earth’s crust. The Russians even believe more hyrdrocarbons are being formed there. There are vast reserves of methane hydrate under the oceans.

    There is simply no evidence for your beliefs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    “Bollocks. Its dirt, its air, its salty water, it will never be bothered by us. If anything we should be paid for fertilising it when we take a piss.”

    While I have spent considerable effort arguing against anthropogenic global warming with greens on frog blog, the statement above pisses me off.
    It is undeniable that the actions of human beings are in fact stuffing this planet that we live on, it is our home and we need to take better care of it.
    I think the angle that world leaders are taking on climate change is crazy, it will result in political instability at the worst possible time. But I think expecting to maintain the current unsustainable use of world resources is equally stupid and short sighted.
    Anyone that believes that crapping in your own nest is good thing is obviously deluded, or currently living at the “crap free” end of the nest.
    It will catch up with us at some point.
    Environmentalism has been hijacked by left wing extremists in many cases, but that doesn’t mean it is wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Alan Wilkinson (1,871 comments) says:

    “Environmentalism has been hijacked by left wing extremists in many cases, but that doesn’t mean it is wrong.”

    Possibly not, but it certainly means it is stupid.

    As I’ve said before, environmentalism is extraordinarily difficult to get right. Which is why evolution was invented.

    Since no-one can know the right answers, the winning option is to experiment with all kinds of solutions and let the future choose which one it likes. The fun part comes when all the options are sharing the same planet of course, but there is nothing new in that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    ““Environmentalism has been hijacked by left wing extremists in many cases, but that doesn’t mean it is wrong.”

    Possibly not, but it certainly means it is stupid.”

    Ok, replace “environmentalism” with Sustainable practice, is there anything wrong with limiting industry to what our planet can actually cope with?
    Does it make sense to continue using farming practice that will ultimately ruin the land for farming?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    Our lifestyle is based on gross and large amounts of energy consumption with piss poor conservation of energy in use. This lifestyle is simply unsustainable at its present rate, it’s great for now but make no mistake, it can’t carry on.
    Some say this has already screwed the environment, others that they know better and it’s all a load of crap this GW.
    It doesn’t matter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    When we burn away a few billion years of energy stored in hydrocarbons there ain’t no more. The only viable alternative to replace the phenomenal energy stored in the oceans of hydrocarbon chemical bonds we have been burning is the sun’s energy but that will require a colossal undertaking and a drastic reduction in our energy intensive lifestyles.
    Analysis of the alternatives such as biofuels, nuclear power etc etc etc all show it just won’t be enough to even scratch the surface of what we use now in hydrocarbon energy. Nuclear energy won’t save us in its present form, all other ethics issues aside, is their isn’t enough Uranium.

    More energy hits the earth from the sun every week than humanity has used throught it’s entire existence. The planet is covered by 2/3 water, miles deep, encircled by a miles thick atmosphere, covered by a crust miles thick.

    For human purposes we have infinite energy, infinite water, infinite air, and infinite minerals.

    If the energy is stored in plants or clouds, or the water is salty, polluted, or in the wrong place, we have a technology problem, not a resource problem.

    None of whats on the planet, other than the super-abundance of energy, ever leaves the surface of the planet. It just gets shifted around, and at various times our technology and practises are insufficient to utilise it or allow it to buildup in the wrong way.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    While I have spent considerable effort arguing against anthropogenic global warming with greens on frog blog, the statement above pisses me off.

    My point is the Earth is rugged, not fragile. It’s still beautiful. The truth is always more beautiful than the daydreams.

    It is unfair and harsh to everthing on it, it is home to neverending death and disease. All life upon it exists by destroying other life. It is still beautiful though.

    99.9% of species upon it become extinct. With or without humans, most of todays species would be heading for extinction. It is inevitable and natural that the success of our species or any other will hasten the demise of many more.

    Humanity does not need to apologise for and deserves no criticism for it’s success and the imbalances that creates. We, and our endeavours, are one of natures beautiful creations. Most of the effects we have on the planet that we decide are problematic can be rapidly changed.

    Pseudo-environmentalists try to propagate a self-loathing, cynical language of a fragile planet to satisfy their own sense of self-worth.

    I do not wish to spend my time on the Earth with such a negative mindset, and I think a view more respectful of our own self-worth will lead to better outcomes for us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Lance (2,634 comments) says:

    Sonny wrote:
    “For human purposes we have infinite energy, infinite water, infinite air, and infinite minerals”

    So how is this going to happen? We are using stored energy at an irreplaceable rate. The sunshine energy is indeed very large, in NZ it’s 1.6kW per metre squared. But that’s a RATE, not an accumulated total.

    Alan W..
    100 years of gas at present consumption (which I doubt BTW) does not translate well to TOTAL hydrocarbon use. Running ALL cars and Planes etc on Gas wouldn’t last very long at all. A few years I would imagine.
    Else why does the USA import so much oil, or go to war over maintaining it?
    And I am sorry but your grasp of solar energy use is inadequate and is ignoring the laws of thermodynamics, one does not USE solar energy, you convert it, so solar energy collectors it will not cool down the planet as no energy will be destroyed or created, just translated into another form, which will ultimately return to heat.
    There is also issues aground transmission and application.

    AND this pearler… “There is simply no evidence for your beliefs”

    You hold up a poor understanding of thermodynamics, a rumour about ‘spontaneous’ hydrocarbon production by rocks from Russians and incomplete fuel data as absolute proof of your correctness. WOW

    Before you comment again beware knowledge of this sort of material is my profession.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    “Humanity does not need to apologise for and deserves no criticism for it’s success and the imbalances that creates. We, and our endeavours, are one of natures beautiful creations.”

    But as intelligent beings we have the ability to modify our behavior for the long term survival of our species. If we are eating too many fish and cutting down too many trees then we need to modify our behavior, not continue as unreasoning animals.
    There is no point in the destruction of our environment unnecessarily, it is stupid irresponsible behavior that is in effect vandalism.
    I think this carbon trading nonsense is political suicide, but there are still issues with the environment that need to be addressed with wisdom and common sense.
    This ground should be, and needs to be taken back from the radical left.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Alan Wilkinson (1,871 comments) says:

    Lance, I have to go out. Will answer you later.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Sonny Blount (1,780 comments) says:

    The sunshine energy is indeed very large, in NZ it’s 1.6kW per metre squared. But that’s a RATE, not an accumulated total.

    So? It is still, for all intents and purposes, infinite.

    100 years of gas at present consumption (which I doubt BTW)

    Who cares what you doubt, ask a geologist. The last one I spoke to told me we have a super abindance of fossil fuels.

    And I am sorry but your grasp of solar energy use is inadequate … one does not USE solar energy, you convert it

    wtf? Your grasp of the English language is inadequate

    so solar energy collectors it will not cool down the planet as no energy will be destroyed or created, just translated into another form, which will ultimately return to heat.

    How much energy does the earth dissipate into space every day?

    If the solar collectors are any more reflective than the ground beneth them, then they will cool down the earth.

    When we burn away a few billion years of energy stored in hydrocarbons there ain’t no more.

    They haven’t gone anywhere. They are merely now in different forms upon the surface of the earth, such as in trees and cows. We don’t even need to wait for massive underground pressure to reuse them. A company L7 has opened factories wherein E Coli bacteria excrete crude oil. Their present technology would require a plant about the size of chicago to provide all the energy requirements for the US.

    There is also issues aground transmission and application.

    This is one of the reasons why hydrocarbons in the form of oil is just about the best storage of energy we have available to us today.

    Nuclear energy won’t save us in its present form, all other ethics issues aside, is their isn’t enough Uranium.

    There are other fuels (therium or something?), eject any overly toxic waste into space.

    There is enough energy contained in a sock to power New York for a year. Technology, which requires wealth to advance, will eventually take us towards harnessing it to our needs.

    Before you comment again beware knowledge of this sort of material is my profession.

    My guess is you work in advertising or politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Alan Wilkinson (1,871 comments) says:

    Lance, two factual and authoritative references on US energy reserves both of which refute your beliefs:

    http://vpaa.unt.edu/OneBook/Energy-PresentandFuture%5B1%5D.pdf
    http://www.questar.com/1OurCompany/newsreleases/2009_news/UVUSpeech.pdf

    Re energy use, you said: “Our lifestyle is based on gross and large amounts of energy consumption with piss poor conservation of energy in use. This lifestyle is simply unsustainable at its present rate”

    Then you quibble when I point out the superabundance of incoming solar energy still available for that consumption. Of course energy is “converted” in the process – sometimes into low-grade heat, sometimes into storage as potential energy or chemical energy. Its ultimate return to heat may or may not take a long time. The point is irrelevant. There is plenty of energy available to sustain and grow our current lifestyles.

    Why does the US import oil? Price, that’s all. As the price rises many other sources become available and alternative conservation methods become economic. That will all happen naturally without any requirement for lunatic “green” policies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Lance (2,634 comments) says:

    Hi Alan
    My original context was the lofty goals of consumption reduction are being bandied about when the nation is in denial, what we need to do (both for the planet and to mitigate the energy use) is so far removed from what our lifestyles are now I suspect the talk is all nonsense.
    The best the govt can manage is a 1/3 insulation subsidy and in the next breath is a goal of CO2 reduction between 15 and 40%…. yea right!
    Without a seismic shift in the nation’s attitude our emissions will probably go UP in the next 10 years.

    I agree with the statement there is a lot of solar energy falling on us, the problem is the scale of collection to make it a viable alternative to our other forms of energy is mind blowing.
    Solar hot water installations are all but FREE in Australia right now and they still have installed 2/5ths of bugger all on the roofs of the nation.

    I get the impression the general public think a Utopian science breakthrough will fix it all… that is a lot of faith to solve a problem with BIG consequences if it turns pear shaped.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Alan Wilkinson (1,871 comments) says:

    Lance, of course our emissions will go up in the next decade (as per my post at 10:58 today which nobody has offered a response to). It’s farcical to pretend otherwise.

    The general public is wise to the fact that markets solve problems and governments only create problems. For political reasons some of us pretend to believe otherwise but when it comes to the crunch we know the facts of life.

    The solutions will be a combination of economics, business and science.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Alan Wilkinson (1,871 comments) says:

    I just read this new article on the folly of fatuous political carbon emission goals:

    http://www.e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2175

    New Zealand still seems on track to join the vacuous promises crowd. It seems to be the Western political disease.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Go figure (6 comments) says:

    Anyone that believes that crapping in your own nest is good thing is obviously deluded, or currently living at the “crap free” end of the nest.
    It will catch up with us at some point.

    Exactly the point with AGW. It represents crapping in our nest more than any other issue. Very strange that someone environmentally oriented would argue against this largest of all environmental problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Billjack (12 comments) says:

    Most people who have studied the AGW subject objectively have long since concluded that human emissions of CO2 will never have a significant, let alone dangerous, effect on the climate. About half of the population in developed countries do not believe in the myth of AGW. This is amazing, considering the propaganda barrage we have all been subjected to over the past 2 decades or so. The tide is slowly beginning to turn, as even the established scientific institutions and the MSM are beginning to recogniise the depth and strength of scientific and public scepticism towards the AGW myth. It is just a matter of time before the MSM changes sides. The bulk of the politicians will follow soon after that. The scientific truth will soon be revealed to all, and the pretty – but gormless – celebrities, a few well-meaning merchants like Tindall, con-artists like Gore and the greens will look stupid, venal or both. In the meantime, the sun remains very quiet and the decade-long cooling spell continues. Climate change is certainly real – and certainly almost completely natural.

    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.