Obama’s emissions target
November 27th, 2009 at 3:00 pm by David FarrarBarack Obama has said the US will wim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 17% by 2020, but this is 17% on their 2005 levels, not 1990 levels.
The growth from 1990 to 2005 has been around 17%, so in fact their target is to be around the same as in 1990 – a 0% change.
Now bear in mind the Greens have got hysterical because NZ has *only* pledged a 10% to 20% reduction on 1990 levels. Obama’s target makes NZ’s target seem wildly ambitious, not bottom of the pack.
Related posts:
- Treasury on emissions target
- What should be NZ’s 2020 emissions target
- NZBCSD suggest 20% target
- The madness of a 40% reduction by 2020
November 27th, 2009 at 3:04 pm
Never forget the ‘Greens’ don’t love New Zealand – they hate and despise it. Just look at all the hate spewed on Frogblog.
The ‘Greens’ want to destroy NZ.
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Just goes to show we didn’t need to be a world leader, all we had to do was wait for the USA to set the target required to save the planet, and adopt the mantra ‘Where America Goes We Go.”
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
But Obama is going to Copenhagen and John Key isn’t. See, that’s an important distinction. Forget namby-pamby targets. It’s all about face. That’s what Gaia wants.
And everybody knows modern aircraft practically suck GHG from the atmosphere now. Or maybe Obama can. I’m not sure, but I bet Greenpeace knows. Yeah, now that I think about it, I’m sure Obama can.
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
…As much as I can’t stand Bammypoos, that is pretty clever. Throw a bone at your enviro-moron supporters and not suffocate your economy in one fell swoop.
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Any bets the Greens response will be:
1. The US emits far more than us.
2. For us to do our bit we must reduce our emissions by more than them.
3. Thus we have to set a higher target than them.
… ? Yes?
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
“Any bets the Greens response will be…”
And the words “moral leadership” and “the planet is under threat” and “deniers” will feature heavily while the words “economic consequences” and “reality” won’t make it in at all.
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
I think the Greens response would be that we shouldn’t model ourselves on the US, they’re in a completely different situation. The Greens would suggest that the US is being too weak.
I would agree with part of that – our situation is very different from the US. Much of the US carbon emissions go into consumer products of one sort or another – transport, manufacturing etc etc. Much of NZ’s carbon emissions are from agriculture. The two are not interchangeable – it is possible to have low carbon manufacturing, low carbon agriculture isn’t something we’ve invented as yet. I would argue that to some extent carbon emissions targets should relate to technological ability to reduce – manufacturing and energy have some options, agriculture less so.
On that basis, I’d say our target should be less ambitious than America’s – because to do otherwise results in carbon leakage and net increase in global emissions (which would clearly be counter-productive).
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
It’s a shame the National government’s recently passed ETS does not go far enough as to even achieve half of our 2020 target
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Contrast Obama’s target with China’s.
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Contrast Obama’s target with China’s
How? China’s metric is ‘intensity’ (“cut emissions of carbon relative to economic growth”) while the US is simply reducing the overall amount emitted. My maths is poor so I have no idea how to compare the targets.
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 3:48 pm
Don’t forget that Obama is only going to Copenhagen because that puts him very close to duck across the Skaggerak (or is it the Kaggerat?) and pick up a Nobel Prize (for showing promise it seems) in person. Otherwise you wouldn’t find him within a thousand miles of the place (except for a game of golf which he seems to be finding plenty of time for these days.)
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
According to Lord Christopher Monckton, in order for us to totally negate any supposed warming that is happening due to our human activity, all of us would have to go back to the stone age for 80 years in order for it to be successful (see part 4). Fortunately, the whole thing is nonsensical and none of this is necessary except for destroying economies and making a select few very wealthy.
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 4:09 pm
Can’t wait for the kick off at Carbonhagen, should be the best three ring circus the world has ever seen. Does anyone know if someone is running a book on the outcome, should be an easy bet. 10 to 1 it will be the biggest fuck up since Dunkirk.
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
“Obama’s target makes NZ’s target seem wildly ambitious, not bottom of the pack.”
Going by general totals
• USA reduction 17% is 3.1756 per capita
• China reduction 40% – 45% is 1.83 – 2.05 per capita
• NZ reduction 10% – 20% is 0.7 – 1.4 per capita
Nearly double NZ figures to include methane [farming]
percentages of world emissions total:
China 21.5% CO2 emissions per capita [metric tonnes] 4.57
USA 20.2% – per capita 18.68
India 5.3% – per capita 1.29
NZ 0.1% of total emissions - per capita 7.022
[New Zealand 30,488,000 metric tonnes population 4,341,458
7.022 metric tonnes per capita]
So New Zealand per capita is
5.44 times India per capita
1.53 times China
0.375% of USA
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
Vote:This is a list of sovereign states by carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity. The data presented below corresponds to emissions in 2006. The data itself were collected in 2007 by the CDIAC for United Nations. The data consider only carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, but not emissions from deforestation, and fossil fuel exporters, etc. Other powerful greenhouse gases are not included in this data, including methane.]
November 27th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
“10 to 1 it will be the biggest fuck up since Dunkirk”
It would be if the people of the Earth or actual scientists had any say in the matter, bb.
They don’t. Politicians are in lock-step, on both sides – conservative and liberal, right across the globe, from China to the US to Africa to the rest of Asia to Europe. Astoundingly, many don’t see the significance in that lock-step and even more astoundingly, some even cheer it on, little realising what it means. Which is why I call such people “the sheeple” and unfortunately, Copenhagen is just one more event leading the sheeple meekly to the slaughter. I wonder if they’ll all go “maaaaa” as they’re lifted up the ramp?
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 4:19 pm
“Fortunately, the whole thing is nonsensical and none of this is necessary..”
You tell that to the incompetent Nick Smith. Why is this moron of a Minister determined to cripple NZ? Why is his boss letting him do it?
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Smart man that Obama guy.
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 4:23 pm
“China reduction 40% – 45% is 1.83 – 2.05 per capita”
Er, Yvette, you forgot to mention that China is reducing the growth of its emissions, not the level of them based on a fixed date e.g. today.
Small point. Not.
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Manolo,
I think Nick Smith has his fingers in ears and is going lalalalala as loud as he can.
He also thinks the Climategate emails are a conspiracy theory.
I have nothing but contempt for the National Government right now. To think I kept my misgivings to myself last year in order to give them a chance.
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 4:32 pm
Manalo,
Actually, serious answer, which is how Lord Monckton describes it : Wealthy, Power, Glory. That is why Nick Smith, who is only the front man here, that’s he’s doing this. And that’s why John Key is letting him.
But the details of why they are doing this is something I would really like to know. Are they just cowards and feel like they have to go along with the world because everyone’s on board the climate change bandwagon. Never mind that the bandwagon is disintegrating as we speak.
The Maori Party are onboard because they’ve been paid off. Probably a bit of a clue as to why National’s supporting this.
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Considering that if China’s per capita GDP grows 7% per year for 10 years- this is actually 10%-20% emissions growth
If it grows 10% it is 43%-56% per cent emissions growth
Good on them
Vote:The Chinese aren’t stupid
November 27th, 2009 at 4:38 pm
What amuses me is that DPF can do a post about Obama’s cap and trade but not about his own parties ETS
Anyway here is what the WSJ has to say about that
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
That move to Australia may be sooner than I thought. Why would a Govt of a country that depends on exports, especially farmers, knee-cap them?
I fear that NZ First may yet arise from the ashes backed by our Farmers. Winstons back…..
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 5:08 pm
reid : “Er, Yvette, you forgot to mention that China is reducing the growth of its emissions, not the level of them based on a fixed date e.g. today.”
Yes, I know these figures are totally naff, but it is hard to find anything that makes much sense. As I say there, these are CO2, leaving out methane, and so probably ignoring our farming sector. This is the information the Government should be regularly presenting so it can be understood in our context – and challenged if need be. [ie: andrei - "What amuses me is that DPF can do a post about Obama’s cap and trade but not about his own parties ETS"]
Meanwhile I believe we should look beyond greenhouse gases and global warming to the nuclear winter effect, and the ‘cross over’ between the two, as the obvious solution to this whole mess is to get as much more krap up there as is possible so the latter condition comes into play.
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Yes, we need a thermo-nuclear exchange asap.
I’m surprised the Greens haven’t advocated that already.
I mean, the planet would survive it and that’s apparently what’s most important to them…
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Its Friday, its hot, and I’ve started drinking.. time to bring out those little factoids that buzz around.
“Smoke Inland”
So read the early logs of the early European ships that came to NZ and often sailed down the coasts.
See, when Maori arrived the charcoal records show that around 80% or 21 million hectares was in forest. The charcoal records then show that Maori burnt about 40% of this forest in the 13th and 14th centuries to encourage fern regrowth for the edible root and probably to improve both access and hunting.
So when the Europeans arrived the forest area was down to about 12.5 million hectares, and they cut and fired another 6 million hectares.
But it didn’t stop there.. Maori went back and burned most of these hectares again and again every few years over the centuries, and as the early aerial photos of NZ show, the Europeans also burned the same areas again and again.
Whats it mean? Well, assuming those early forests were substantial they would have carried over 500 tonnes of native forest, and the carbon content of that is about 50% or 250 tonnes. The effect of reburning every few years would likewise have put a few tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere.. so its likely that some hectares emitted 250 tonnes initially and maybe 3-5 tonnes every several years after that from say the 14th century.
So lets round this up and say Maori burnt each of their millions of hectares many times and produced 500 tonnes of carbon over the centuries.. thats about 4.2 billion tonnes of carbon emissions divided by say 700 years or 6 million tonnes per year.
I’ve forgotten how many Maori were around in those centuries but why don’t we do a Hadley Climate Centre calculation and say it was 100,000.
The Europeans were left with the higher and harder to burn forests that carried more tonnes of wood per hectare,, say 400 tonnes of carbon, and they cut and burned around 6 million hectares.. plus a few reburns.. lets say another 500 tonnes of C from 1850 to about 1970.. thats another 3 billion tonnes or 25 million tonnes per year. This for an average population of maybe 2 million?
Heres the conclusions:
1. You are ahead of the game because you have my codes and calculations and can replicate my results for criticisms.
2. I have about the same PLE as the current crop of climatologists.
3. Maori emitted around 60 tonnes of carbon per person, per year.
4. Pakeha emitted about 12.5 million tonnes per person per year up to about 1970 (plus a hell of a lot of agricultural emissions).
5. Grumpyoldhori owes me a shitload of carbon credits.
6. Its very likely that NZ has the steepest graph of carbon reductions in the world.
7. This group owes me 2 6oz glasses of red wine for writing this.. plus another couple for research.
JC
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 5:32 pm
And now the Government is giving concessions to Maori to plant forests on some of the same ground, but this time they aren’t allowed to burn it down.
Vote:However I and my partner have just [couple of hours ago] purchased an timber entertainment unit and a bookshelf unit, and after paying for them, I was told in fact they are New Zealand pine [stained], which puzzled me because earlier I was informed they were made in China – and, yes, the timber has been exported to China, made up there into furniture, and imported back. But I guess we are getting even by selling them our coal for them to inefficiently burn in their power stations.
November 27th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Nuclear winter is a great suggestion Yvette, “Nuke the Whales”
Re agriculture emissions, the good news is that it is possible to produce animal products with low emissions; the bad news is that NZ already does, so moving even lower is harder for us than the rest of the world.
I’m not sure whether this means we need to send more radio active debris into the air or less.
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Don’t worry about when China will achieve their target. The ‘official’ statistics will show the target achieved whatever the date is.
An article in the lasted Economist says China can’t even get accurate oil consumption records so how can carbon emissions be accurate?
Vote:(I havn’t given a link because it is a subscription service)
November 27th, 2009 at 5:51 pm
“Nuclear winter” doesn’t have to be radio active – a similar effect could be achieved probably by drilling through the bottom of the Taupo caldera to the magma below – oh, the what? The Maori own the lake bed? John Key should be able to do a deal on that. What? The last time this went up, it flatted every tree down to about Christchurch – about as effective as JC’s story – whatabugga
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 5:59 pm
Being the least corrupt country in the world could have it drawbacks with carbon trading. Whats to stop a country saying “we are a bit short in the budget, lets put out some stats that say we have reduced carbon use, and sell the credits to NZ.” SUCKER.
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Barry Soper was on the Good Morning programme the other day saying that we don’t even know how much these ‘carbon credits’ are going to sell for, now or in the future: NO ONE knows. A lot of the detail about this carbon trade scheme is up in the air, and yet we go helter-skelter head over heals into joining up to it. What kind of idiots are we?
At least the Australian MPs have some guts – five frontbenchers walking away from their portfolios rather than give support to their ETS. I wish our MPs had some balls. It seems to be all about money and deals over here though – carrying on Helen’s legacy.
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Key the gambler (ooops ) trader thinks we can gamble our way to prosperity. That’s why we don’t understand it all and he apparently does.
Vote:Unfortunately its our money and not his that he is playing his gambles with.
But then who are we mere citizens to complain?
November 27th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
“What amuses me is that DPF can do a post about Obama’s cap and trade but not about his own parties ETS”
It is amazing, isn’t it? Why would DPF be so coy, shy, meek, timid and reserved about National’s shameful ETS?
Vote:I know it: he is overseas.
November 27th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
It’s all bullshit isn’t it.
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 8:01 pm
“It’s all bullshit isn’t it.”
Re: National’s ETS. It would indeed be a shame if they really believed this AGW bullshit.
OTOH, would it not also be a shame if they did nothing about it given that all the world is enraptured by this apparently “real” phenomena.
Given that we depend on and are exposed utterly to the vagaries of world trade, how would you have our leaders behave on the global stage and domestically?
That’s the real-politic question. If you’re the PM, and you give the fingers to the world opinion, EVEN IF YOU THINK ITS BULLSHIT, where does that leave our domestic economy, which depends on selling stuff to customers who like us?
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
It is appalling that I have to find out the truth about B Hussein’s Messiah Obama’s supposed ‘emissions reduction’ from my fellow contributors here at kiwiblog.
Our fucking pathetic media have all breathlessly reported Obama’s 17% reduction without mentioning that this is a reduction from 2005 levels.
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
This whole issue could be summed up in the core of this article.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/its_character_stupid.html
Because this is what appears to be lacking in the worlds leaders including our own.
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
A lot of people here are talking about Greens without having the slightest clue about Greens.
Visit a GREEN website and learn the truth about Greens. http://blog.greens.org.nz
Don’t take the words of the ignorant for facts.
On this blog people can’t even be accused of lying. You have to know the truth in order to lie.
BJ
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
“Visit a GREEN website and learn the truth about Greens.”
I don’t want to lest I go blind, bj.
Why don’t the Greens ever say anything that doesn’t entail complete economic ruin in the real world, is my question to you.
P.S. Lest you think I’m not fully informed, I listen carefully to the Greens’ phublic statements from all MPs as reported to the media. If they really weren’t meaning to say they intend to commit economic suicide, why does every Green MP say so publicly?
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 8:44 pm
Reid,
That’s the real-politic question. If you’re the PM, and you give the fingers to the world opinion, EVEN IF YOU THINK ITS BULLSHIT, where does that leave our domestic economy, which depends on selling stuff to customers who like us?
Ummm, the ETS will stuff our economy. If given a choice between shooting myself because someone else is going to or having someone shoot me, I’d rather take the risk than commit suicide.
What our “leader” has done has made NZ commit suicide because if we don’t, the world might not like us.
Meanwhile, the whole reason to commit suicide is fast unravelling with Climategate.
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Lol….Visit the Green blog and learn the truth!
What a joke, this from a party that until recently had Parliaments biggest liar as one of its MP’s.
This from a party that continues to push the climate change con.
This from a party that wants to control what our kids eat yet see no problem with those same kids smoking dope.
This from a party that believes in apartheid.
This from a party that refused to acknowledge the shocking rate of Maori child killings.
This from a party that still thinks the answer to child abuse is to toss more of our money at the dead beat parents.
This from a party that is hell bent on the economic destruction of New Zealand.
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Lucia, don’t disagree on what is the correct, just and true course. Was merely pointing out, that’s the calculation the PM needs to make.
However, how wise would it be to ignore the very real consequences arising from the perception we’d create if we stood alone against the global fantasy?
We’ve already experienced nuclear free fantasy-land, do we really want to screw our agriculture the way our defense is screwed?
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Reid,
Yeah, I thought that was the case with what you said.
However, with the PM, if he was working it out that way, why not share it with the populace? Why not be up front and tell us we are going to get completely screwed if we don’t play along with the rest of the world? Why not let the country decide what we want to risk, because when it comes down to it, we have more to lose than he does.
I think the answer to that question is that he has his own reasons for going along with this, just like he had his own reasons for refusing to repeal the anti-smacking law.
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
But if you’re the PM Lucia, how could you share/say something like that?
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
MikeNZ, yes it is all bullshit. In the olden days when woolly mammoths roamed the globe and I was young, I imagined that adults were wise and I could not wait to grow up to achieve wisdom. Yeah right. ha ha etc.
Vote:But now I am angry about still being bullshitted about. I naively imagined that John Key must be more honest than the previous cabal. Now what the hell do we do? Global warming is now an article of religious faith. which the intellectual elite champion. That worries me.
November 27th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Yes reid, you have it in one!
There is a degree of faith required, scary isn’t it..
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
What scares me db, is that some fools don’t appear to realise that it’s all a game of smoke and mirrors.
It’s one thing to pretend you’re playing the game, it’s quite another to clap and cheer as if one actually believes that whatever happened actually will make a blind bit of difference.
Stupid doesn’t begin to describe it.
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
This thread appears to be the climate change deniers equivalent of a group love-in.
Have fun
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
so… national has ‘helped’ the maori party into the ets,… whos ‘helping’ national…….?
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Enjoying your denial, Puke?
Vote:November 27th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
Stock market tumbles oil go’s down and gold will plumet. This will be the wake up call for the fraud of global warming..
Vote:November 28th, 2009 at 12:04 am
>>This thread appears to be the climate change deniers equivalent of a group love-in.
As opposed to Luc Hansen who is a lone wanker
Vote:Sorry too easy
November 28th, 2009 at 8:02 am
AGW is a religious issue in the same way as evolution is a religious issue.
Its opposition is due to a religion. There is no valid science to oppose it.
Worship of the mammon is no less a religion than any other… and the science behind AGW (I won’t use ACC, too confusing) is very nearly as difficult to refute as evolution.
You can talk to the Greens or you can talk to Mother Nature. Most Greens won’t spank but Mom is breaking out a can of whup-ass you would do well to avoid.
You will not find a single word about bankrupting the country here
http://www.greens.org.nz/policy/economic
…so stop lying.
Besides. Though not for the reasons you lot use, Greens regard the changes in OUR ETS as lower than whalepuke.
It is nothing more than an arrogant corporatist wealth transfer from taxpayers to businesses now. Instead of using market forces to adjust our behaviour we’re going to use our imaginations, because that’s all we’re going to have when Key and his cronies are done with us. Forget about having clothes on our back.
The US has to cut emissions in half to get close to what will work folks. This isn’t about what WE want. It is about what has to happen for the planet not to return to conditions last seen when our ancestors were less than a meter tall and had prehensile tails.
BJ
Vote:November 28th, 2009 at 8:18 am
Oh, I also did a blog piece yesterday on sciblogs about the ETS, Copenhagen and NZ. It got a mention in the SMC weekly media release.
http://sciblogs.co.nz/chthonic-wildlife-ramblings/2009/11/27/a-quick-and-dirty-guide-to-global-warming-for-nz/
Vote:November 28th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Is it true you have to become a vegetarian to join the Green Party in NZ?
Vote:November 28th, 2009 at 10:30 am
Noodle, Lucia et al
Why must politicians lie?
That is what they are doing if they don’t acknowledge the reality of the bullshit that is the ETS and climate change viz a viz the economics.
It would take just one country openly saying, hey guys this is bullshit.
We accept there is climate change but not the doom sayers who are rushing at this and appear to be controlling the conversation.
We stop here.
We are going to be more sustainable as it is what is best practice but we are not going to hand over our peoples money to third parties, neither are we going to cripple our economy based on faulty science.
Why can’t JK and others say this?
I think it is a character issue, simple.
That is the difference between a person of principle and a compromiser.
The deal maker looks for the deal instead of standing up and saying this doesn’t stack up.
Vote:I think pragmatic Kiwis would support a PM who told the truth and did that.
I also think there would be an awful lot of people in the world who would say thank you lets walk together.
November 28th, 2009 at 10:35 am
Hat tip democracymum
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/terry-mccranns-column/devilish-ets-a-scheme-nobody-should-vote-for/story-e6frfig6-1225802727658
why can’t our politicians say this.
Vote:Not one has got up in parliament and done so accept ACT.
Why must it be a little party where are the people of principle in the Labour and National parties?
November 28th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Chthoniid
Vote:You titled your piece a dirty guide and that’s about right.
I just read your piece and i think you are very very wrong.
The ETS is unnecessary as CO2 is not the problem it is made out to be.
A carbon tax is wrong as is giving our monies to third parties in a false market.
read the Aus Herald article above.
November 28th, 2009 at 11:55 am
sorry, what gave you the impression I thought the ETS was a good idea?
Also, a carbon tax doesn’t come with any obligation to give money to any third party. It simply substitutes one domestic form of taxation for another.
Vote:November 28th, 2009 at 7:01 pm
I agree. It’s the new mooncult. Believe in AGW (like a child would believe in Santa) or be cast out.
Vote:November 29th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Is it true you have to become a vegetarian to join the Green Party in NZ?
Oh come ON.
Vote:December 2nd, 2009 at 2:32 am
At Sandbag Climate Campaign we’ve developed a climate calculator to help demonstrate the real reductions which will need to be made in order to meet emissions targets: http://www.sandbagclimategame.org/tc
Vote: