Treasury on emissions target
August 18th, 2009 at 8:23 pm by David FarrarA few people have tried to portray the Government’s target of a 10% to 20% reduction over 1990 levels as some sort of half hearted wimp out. In fact it is right at the top of what is achievable without lunacies such as shooting cows.
Matthew Hooton pointed out in NBR how massive this target is:
The 10-20% target announced by John Key, Nick Smith and Tim Groser this week is far more radical than it sounds. By 2020, under business as usual, New Zealand’s net emissions are forecast to be up 40% over 1990 levels.
This means the Greens’ 40% target cut over the 1990 baseline is in fact a 57% cut over the base case. National’s 20% target would require a 43% cut.
In other words, National has offered up a proposed cut that is three-quarters of what the most swivel-eyed neo-Marxists in the Green movement have been demanding.
This is why Labour does not dare say what their target would have been.
Now NZPA report what Treasury says the target should be:
But Treasury recommended a target range with an unconditional target of 8 percent reduction on a base year of 2005.
This was equivalent to emissions 15 percent above the 1990 level because New Zealand’s total greenhouse gas emissions increased 24.7 percent between 1990 and 2005.
So the Government has gone for a target of 10% to 20% below 1990 levels, when their official advice was aim for 15% above 1990 levels. So again, if an eco marxist tries to claim this target is some sort of wimpy sell out, go drop a cow on them. If anything the Government could be criticised for too ambitious a target.
Incidentally I would recommend people read Professor Sir Peter Gluckman’s summary of the issues on climate change.
Related posts:
- Obama’s emissions target
- What should be NZ’s 2020 emissions target
- Fallow on 2020 target
- The madness of a 40% reduction by 2020
August 18th, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Gluckman’s first paragraph is mostly correct. However, it degenerates into half-truths and outright lies after that. Not his fault though – he probably thinks the IPCC was set up to see if humans were affecting the climate, whereas it was set up to provide evidence that there is anthropogenic climate change.
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
I propose the best course of action on AGW is to take no action at all.
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
You have to wonder about Gluckman. The other day he likened AGW deniers to same sceptics that argued Aids was not caused by a virus. Not a well thought out comparison as most of the Aids virus deniers are the Green lefties, the same who promote AGW.
Vote:If the treaty or welfare don’t fuck this country, the ETS will
August 18th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Gluckman should stick to medicine. His HIV analogy is an unworthy insult to people much better qualified to comment than he is. It reflects badly on him.
Treasury was right. The 10-20% target is a fraud and won’t happen – certainly not by 2020.
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Ever get the feeling that scientists just love all the attention they are getting about this.
Without AGW people like Gavin Schmuck would probably live out their whole lives without more than a few hundred people scattered around various universities reading their research output. I think they’re gonna find it difficult to give up all the fawning.
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
What needs to be remembered is our target of 10-15% includes agricultural emissions. No other country has been that foolish.
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 9:04 pm
“If anything the Government could be criticised for too ambitious a target.”
DPF I dont think there’s much ‘could’ about it
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
David, why would I want to read the ramblings of a plumber who tries to advise on matters relating to nuclear physics? Just because the plumber has studied up on nuclear physics for one month?
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
As others above have pointed out – he says –
What is that supposed to prove? That a thing can be proved to be correct or incorrect by the consensus of scientists who agree with it? Very well – let’s take that argument and compare with with another put forward in an article interviewing Professor Ian Plimer, the ‘Australian geologist, whose new book shows that ‘anthropogenic global warming’ is a dangerous, ruinously expensive fiction, a ‘first-world luxury’ with no basis in scientific fact’.
Professor Pilmer points out –
There you go, Mr Gluckman, what say you to that?
As for the science, you would think that all the scientists would be together on this, trying to come to consensus. Not so. The Climate Research Unit in the UK, that has collected the climate change data since the 1980s refuses to share the data so that it may be peer reviewed by other experts. When asked by Warwick Hughes for this data, Dr. Jones [from the CRU] famously replied:
And now? Now they have said that all the data they have collected since the 1980s has “been erased“. Yep, that’s right – they’ve got the graphs that they made from the data, but the data is no more. Other scientists and the public are just expected to believe without question that the data is correct – we have to take their word for it. How convenient, as the 4-Square women would say.
There’s something really wrong when supposedly the world is at stake and information can’t be shared transparently.
And now a group of senior physicists, including a Nobel Prize winner, have put their names to a letter rejecting claims that evidence of human caused global warming is “incontrovertible”, and suggesting the role of CO2 has been overhyped. [hattip tbr.cc] – that’s not including the 31,000 scientists last year(including 9000 with PhDs) who also signed a petition.
[edit] Pilmer interview here – http://www.spectator.co.uk/print/the-magazine/features/3755623/meet-the-man-who-has-exposed-the-great-climate-change-con-trick.thtml
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
I don’t think the average person/greenie realises what this will cost he he.
Initially, I don’t think it bothers me since I am well enough off.
However, if they introduce further progressive type taxation, so that the poor can be compensated by the rich for extra costs, that will piss me off.
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
“If anything the Government could be criticised for too ambitious a target.”
Damn right there. Fucken ridiculous.
You know what’s worse??
They know it.
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 9:41 pm
“swivel-eyed neo-Marxists in the Green movement ”
Bloody brilliant, sounds like the eco fundy nutjobs over at http://www.thecommie.org.nz
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
This is what I suspect also Red.
They are hoping to ride out the global warming tide before the hurt really kicks in (or be out of gov by then) and not piss off the stupids on the left and centre until then.
Unprincipled cowards. They’ve simply banked on those of us who are pissed off by what they’re doing not voting for the left.
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
Oh what a load of horse shit, the good doctor Gluckman is but a mere pawn in a vast con. The government is playing a game of poker and it’s their first call . The cards are on the table and we have raised the stakes. I would say that a presumably right wing government would know that these sort of emission levels will kill the country. So put a high stake on the table and watch the rest of the players sweet and call. If one drops out it’s game over, that’s the rules with our bid, a few might raise the stakes but this will only scare the rest off, game over. This crap won’t get over the starting line.
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Science and truth are not a democracy. One person can be right against hundreds.
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
JUST LIKE THE TOOTH FAIRY,EASTER BUNNY, FATHER CHRISTMAS AND UM GLOBAL WARMING….CLIMATE CHANGE, TINKERBELL AND GLOBAL WARMING AND A EMISSIONS TRADING SCHEME ARE FAIRY TELLS MADE UP BY ADULTS WHO EAT THERE OWN SNOT AND USE THERE EAR WAX FOR CANDLES….
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
They conveniently skip Y2K, as this was also a research grant festival.
And remind me what happened again? Zero, Zip, Zilch.
Even back then those Award winning Scientists were appearing regulary on TV with even more outrageous claims and warnings.
Ovens will stop, alarm clocks will be affected, Water supply systems will fail, planes will fall out of the sky.
Not wanting to stop a great feast. The Millenium Commision UK continues to plan for the next one.
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Here’s a very thought provoking quote by President Dwight D Eisenhower –
So true…
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Incidentally I would recommend people read Professor Sir Peter Gluckman’s summary of the issues on climate change.
Why?
It is utter tosh and if I felt like reading utter tosh I would rather read the National Enquirer. It is far better researched.
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
And still there isn’t one Island community that has had to be re-located due to Sea Level increase due to AGW.
Been to the Maldives a few times. Many of those islands have had to deploy sea defences against wave and current action.
That I understand. To my amazement so many of the Resorts we considered the last few times have been re-developed.
And not in a small way. Don’t forget that these are all leased tribal/Government titles. So if there is no freeholding benefit and all these wise men say that they will disappear in the first instance. WTF is going on?
The Australian Government has promised displacement citizenship to the Maldiveans in the event of catastrophe.
Does someone know something that we don’t.
Vote:August 18th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Glut –
SEA LEVEL IN THE SOUTHWEST PACIFIC IS STABLE
Posted 4 August 2009
“Graphs of sea level for twelve locations in the southwest Pacific show stable sea level for about ten years over the region. The data … suggest that any rise of global sea level is negligible….. Sea level studies have not been carried out for very long, but they can indicate major tectonic components such as isostatic rebound in Scandinavia. ..Modelling to show alarming rates of sea level rise (associated with alleged global warming) are not supported by primary regional or global data. Even those places frequently said to be in grave danger of drowning, such as the Maldives, Tuvalu and Holland, appear to be safe”. – New paper by Cliff Ollier, University of Western Australia.
Vote:LINK to download pdf here http://nzclimatescience.net/images/PDFs/paperncgtsealevl.pdf
August 18th, 2009 at 10:59 pm
“Fletch (396) Vote: Add rating 0 Subtract rating 0 Says:
August 18th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
But there are some genuine uncertainties in the details of global warming, …A similar debate occurred about AIDS, where a minority of scientists maintained for a long time that the disease was not caused by a virus. …
…That a thing can be proved to be correct or incorrect by the consensus of scientists who agree with it? …
Professor Pilmer points out –
‘If you’d asked any scientist or doctor 30 years ago where stomach ulcers come from, they would all have given the same answer: obviously it comes from the acid brought on by too much stress. All of them apart from two scientists who were pilloried for their crazy, whacko theory that it was caused by a bacteria. In 2005 they won the Nobel prize. The “consensus” was wrong.’….
….And now a group of senior physicists, including a Nobel Prize winner, have put their names to a letter rejecting claims that evidence of human caused global warming is “incontrovertible”, and suggesting the role of CO2 has been overhyped.”
So let me get your post straight.
Premise 1: Lots of experts believing something does not make it true.
P2: But thousands of scientists don’t believe global warming is real
Conclusion: Global warming is not real.
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 12:15 am
racer1,
I was just proving how ridiculous Gluckman’s argument is in comparing global warming to AIDS. I was trying to show that a consensus does not necessarily mean a thing is correct or not. I could have used Copernicus’s theory of the Sun being the center of the Galaxy and no one else believing it apart from Copernicus. Gluckman is comparing apples with oranges.
In the second, I was just affirming that many, many scientists do not believe in human-caused global warming – not just the “minority of scientists” that Gluckman is trying to infer.
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 12:17 am
Gluckman is pushing the predominant viewpoint, as JK doesn’t want to push too much, but Gluckman is a martar, he just doesn’t know it, in 10 years he’ll be proven wrong, the more the IPCC and the like predict, the more they’ll be left the laughing stock. At least as a legacy he’ll hopefully leave the banning of pseudo ephedrine containing cold & flu products. Definitely puts the pressure on Customs to do there job better.
The fact we’re agreeing to basically 75% of what the Greens want is a worry frankly, although the majority of scientists & the public currently believe that global warming is caused by humans, a majority of ‘scientists’ & the public believed hundreds of years ago, that the world was flat, doesn’t make it so does it?
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 12:23 am
Just out of interest , what would it take to prove to you that A: Global warming is real and\or B: humans are causing it?
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 12:35 am
racer 1
personally, it’d be going back over the many years 1000yrs plus of temperature recordings & estimates (reliable) and comparing them to solar activity & plotting human growth over this time, and trying to prove (convincingly) that humans have added in any significant way to it.
I’ve read quite a few of the reports & they aren’t convincing to me, I have a uni degree & are 6months off a 2nd & aren’t exactly convinced that most of the studies/reports would pass academic rigour if they’re wasn’t pressure on them from either side. But having said that, to me at least the anti human induced global warming scientists are winning hands down.
Vote:Its not to say their 100% correct, but they’re the most convincing.
August 19th, 2009 at 2:20 am
Simple Racer,
If in the temp record of Earths history:
Increasing CO2 occured with or BEFORE increasing temp (required to show the possibility of causation)
Decreasing temp occured AFTER decreasing CO2 (required to show the possibility of causation)
Temps kept getting higher and STAYED higher as CO2 increased (the forcings predicted actually happened)
and:
If any model offered of climate was run out over 60+ years and was able to accurately predict patterns.
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 3:40 am
“Just out of interest , what would it take to prove to you that A: Global warming is real and\or B: humans are causing it?”
When Boeing, Airbus, and their Asian equivalents stop building planes. When there are no more airport developments, and
terminal additions. When instead of being taxed for ‘effin everything, and fined for incorrect refuse collection etc.
We are instead treated to grants, tax breaks, medals, and beany hats for being good citizens.
Carbon Trading is so Enronesque, and the bottom line is a requirement to fund Sir Humphrey’s ample pension pot, and those of his minions. They operate on a current account basis and there is no money in the kitty.
It will be window tax again soon.
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 7:14 am
5/- expert. There is 2 years worth of debate at NZCPD.com which covers all sorts of theories, projections from hundreds of sources and predominately now the science is saying that Global Warming is a myth.
Vote:DPF you should spend a day browsing before trying to push Gluckmans one months research based on IPCC .
There is a clear lack of inquiry in this report and to support such stuff in frankly unintelligent.
Science after all is about inquiry but perhaps politics isn’t.
So the challenge is to actually do some inquiry.
August 19th, 2009 at 7:29 am
“Just out of interest , what would it take to prove to you that A: Global warming is real and\or B: humans are causing it?”
gee I dunno, the hockey stick graph nearly did it…(until of course it was proven to be artifact of poor mathematics)
pffft
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 7:30 am
And remind me what happened again? Zero, Zip, Zilch.
To be honest this was a non-event because IT people spent four or five years before hand fixing systems to make sure they didn’t fall over. Systems I worked on would have caused massive, but non-fatal, problems if not fixed. Thousands of people not being paid, bank transactions screwing up and mortgages not calculating interest properly – that sort of thing. However, it was hyped up by the media – agreed.
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 7:32 am
Interesting to see all the climate scientists here criticising Gluckman for his lack of expertise. What makes them so certain they are right, that they know it all and most scientists don’t?
“So the challenge is to actually do some inquiry.”
Unless your mind is already fixed.
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Cerium, The other day you commented;
“I doubt that [edited] are the answer. Otherwise they would have been tried – maybe they aren’t cost effective”
Just how do you rationalise things? (any way that’s convenient at the time perhaps?)
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2009/08/86000_a_year_for_15_years_on_the_benefit.html#comment-597290
you’re all over the place like a mad womans shit
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 8:29 am
767 posts of inane waffle in a couple of short months. WTF for?
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 8:43 am
A replacement for the infamous and fraudulent ‘Hockey Stick’ is here http://tinyurl.com/rx6x2w
This doesn’t rely on Michael Mann’s meaningless Bristle Cone Pine data.
And to see the last 30 years of temperature data, take a look at the mid-tropospheric (where the alarmists said the ‘hot spot’ would be best detected) temperature anomalies here http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html
Vote:It is a bit early to say if the global cooling which began around 2002 will continue, but many astrophysicists are warning of a possible new ‘Maunder Minimum’ (little ice age).
August 19th, 2009 at 9:01 am
Mummy, that man just said ‘mad woman’s shit’ …
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 9:05 am
In a peer-reviewed study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out into space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for. http://bit.ly/9nObE
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 9:11 am
… and then another man said ‘inane waffle’ …
Of course AGW is just a front so that the ‘One Worlders’ can force funds transference from first world countries to emerging economies. Ultimately leading to a One World Government. Helen Klark will be leading the charge from her position in the UN.
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 11:20 am
>>Just out of interest , what would it take to prove to you that A: Global warming is real and\or B: humans are causing it?
Three things
Rising temperatures
Rising temperatures
Rising temperatures
As measured by satellite
Until then you can go on as much as you like about CO2 levels, melting glaciers and polar bears. It just doesn’t matter.
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 11:43 am
What temperatures? High level atmosphere? Ground level? Soil temperature? Sea surface? Deep sea? How do you determine averages?
Funny thing happening here this year, statistically we had a cold winter but spring is more advanced than usual. Is that because the numbers are done on air temperature but soil temperature determines growth and they haven’t been as cold?
Even then it’s still complex. Warmer sea can result in more snow falling on glaciers which could grow them. More sun or warmer air over the poles could melt ice which could feed cooler sea currents. It is thought that a significant cooling in Europe could have been caused by melting icecap over North America accumulating then bursting and flooding the sea with cooler fresh water, disrupting warm currents.
I don’t know how experts in the field can be sure what is happening and how it can be accurately measured.
Vote:I don’t know how non-experts can be certain nothing we are doing is causing anything.
August 19th, 2009 at 11:58 am
The best indicator is ocean heat content since oceans contain most of the planet’s surface heat.
Wrt that:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/17/evidence-that-ocean-net-heat-flow-is-connected-with-climate-shifts-co2-not-correlated/
Also several papers by R Pielke Snr.
Our local climate is affected by the recent flip to El Nino conditions which brings warmer sea temperatures.
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
I think there should be a reduction for long winded reasons explored many times before BUT….
It aint going to happen, these 10% to 20% reduction targets represent an enormous change in lifestyle akin to World War 2 deprivations. I would be surprised if the CO2 emissions stop INCREASING let alone decrease.
I can only see this happening with radical changes in agriculture, a solar hot water system on every roof and all cars electric. The best the govt has managed up to now is to fuck up the solar hot water industry (long story that pisses me off) scrape together a 1/3 insulation of houses deal (only some old houses) while buying BIG cars for parliamentarians and jet setting the world on an endless junket.
Like I said… it aint going to happen so don’t worry about it.
Vote:In the words of Supertramp… “crisis.. what crisis?”
August 19th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
I agree Lance. I put it this way:
Probability of 10-20% reduction being achieved by 2020: 0%
Vote:Probability of carbon accounting being faked to make it look as though 10-20% reduction was achieved: 5%
Probability of ETS being totally scrapped before 2020: 95%
August 19th, 2009 at 2:37 pm
This kind of position really pisses me off.
A decision needs to be made. Yes or no.
Not, ‘I’m smarter than all of you put together because I can’t form an opinion’.
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 2:40 pm
Too bloody right Alan.
I would add:
Probability of being viewed as crooks if we knowingly participate in this fraud: 95%
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Are you suggesting you are smart enough to make that decision 70-under-one-of-your-names-Herman?
Are you sure enough to stick with that decision no matter what evidence may eventuate?
Did you read the link on Alan’s post? It was interesting, but a small part of a large picture. I don’t mind admitting I only have a superficial knowledge of a complex issue, that’s why I don’t jump to any conclusions and close my mind at that. I don’t know why that approach would piss anyone off, unless they just don’t like someone that doesn’t agree with them (jeez, I’m not even sure if I disagree).
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
And remind me again how much time & money was spent by organisations ensuring nothing happened? Oh yeah, a shitload & years.
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
They conveniently skip Y2K, as this was also a research grant festival.
And remind me what happened again? Zero, Zip, Zilch.
That’s something I know more about. There were a lot of date issues that needed to be addressed and they were. Most weren’t critical. There were some problems that were missed, they were resolved – they generally weren’t exciting enough for the media to report on. And sure, there was heaps unnecessary time and money spent, and it was overhyped. I had to work New Year’s Eve, not becasue I thought it was necessary to avert disaster, but because someone paid me to.
Global warming may not have destroyed civilisation before we encounter the 2038 problem. Maybe by the 2070 problem? Life as we know it will be well and truly be history by the 10,000 problem. But the ones that tend to be the worst are those that aren’t predicted. The last leap year problem caught a few out.
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 3:30 pm
Heh, I wasn’t expecting planes to fall from the sky, and I certainly didn’t care if my VCR thought it was the year 1900, but a lot of the problems ironed out in systems I worked on out involved financial calculations of interest and debt. They did depend on knowing the right date.
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 3:51 pm
This is a topic that Labour actually got right. Have really, really big targets. Make lots of noise. Go along with the Greenies. Do fuckall. Probably the best policy.
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
It doesn’t matter how smart you are. A decision has to be made. That’s how life works.
I’m very, very sure of my decision, but if I turn out to be wrong, I will change my opinion.
I didn’t used to understand that much about this issue. I didn’t tell everybody all about that rather uninteresting situation. I went away and read as much as I could, and then when my position became clear to me, I readily stated it. I’ve never found that people jumping into conversations to tell you that they don’t know what you’re talking about especially helpful.
I think if you made the effort to really find out for yourself, you might realise how non-catastrophists have good reason to be absolutely assured of their position.
Vote:August 19th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
It looks like the Aussies won’t be going in on the carbon trading scheme, either. This from the Pilmer interview I have linked in a post of mine above.
If only we were as smart.
Vote: