Defending Kyoto
Murray Ward, a global climate change consultant, has an op-ed in the Herald this morning ripping apart National’s position on Kyoto.
Why aren’t India and China expected to meet the same commitments we are?
Well, he writes, because in 1995 (when National signed up to Kyoto), it was decided that industrialised countries were to go first. This decision was made because the industrialised world’s:
historical emissions are mostly responsible for the looming threat of climate change, in particular the burning of fossil fuels that was central to their industrialisation.
Why would we sign up to Kyoto if it’s going to cost us money?
Well, all other industrialised countries signed up are doing so. He writes:
New Zealand was the only industrialised country in the OECD that found itself in the position of possibly being a net seller of emissions units, even though it had a growing economy and growing emissions. This was because of the extensive planting of forests in the 1990s. All the others that ratified the protocol (the US and Australia being the exceptions) did so knowing that there would be some cost… New Zealand is ranked No 4 in per-capita emissions among OECD countries when the emissions associated with the agriculture sector are included. We’re not that “pure”. This does not go unnoticed.
But won’t Kyoto do nothing about the problem anyway?
Well, he writes:
What experts do agree is that Kyoto is just a first necessary step. By establishing emission targets, having a measurement and compliance system and allowing emissions trading, Kyoto has enabled a new global financial market - the carbon market … [which] will be a primary means to mobilise investment in energy efficiency and renewable and cleaner technology, which is necessary to substantially reduce global emission and allow the world to get on top of the climate change problem.
Because energy is central to the world’s economy, the metaphor of turning a supertanker from a perilous course is often used. You don’t expect that just a few minutes after you’ve turned the wheel you’ll be pointing in a safe direction. So, too, with Kyoto and its first, modest commitments. It’s all about setting the framework in motion.
So, next time you hear Don Brash or Nick Smith blathering on incoherently about climate change, you’ll know that they either don’t know what they’re talking about or they’re deceiving the public for political gain.
June 28th, 2005 at 1:48 pm
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=19
Tattoo this site in your brain.
June 28th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
sowwy fwog but no cigar that money ear marked for conservation fund
June 28th, 2005 at 3:03 pm
sowwy again fwog i just realise amphibian no ears to ear mark that weird fwog i study evolution how you hear about thing with no ear
June 28th, 2005 at 3:22 pm
feel bad about kyoto fwog we knows you committedd but then there was the spliced corn youse was so convinced and the sadness go away fwog you do good work fwog on the Waitaki
without yo it be big pipes and railway station without fwogs and fwogs fwiends ..
June 28th, 2005 at 9:26 pm
Peter said:
“vind slecht over Kyoto kikker wij u committedd kennen maar toen was er het verbonden graan youse was zo overtuigd en de droefheid gaat kikker u doet weg het goede werk kikker aangaande Waitaki zonder yo het grote pijpen en spoorwegpost zonder kikkers en kikkers fwiends.. is”
Peter, why don’t you show the depth of your intellect and post in another language that more than one person can understand
June 28th, 2005 at 10:41 pm
no we not kikken at the fwwog we just talking in tongues about the tyrant .. we get rid tyrasnt whatever .. ya gotyta give on kyoto for thwee years
June 29th, 2005 at 7:10 am
Ok. Dutch(?) and Quixotish, and I really don’t understand either one of you, though I almost figured out the Dutch.
There are several things to consider and to do:
1. NZ cannot abandon Kyoto. Clean-Green-NZ pulling out of the treaty would damage its prospects for implementation in the rest of the world fatally. There’s a cost that is not readily counted, of being the greenest country on the planet. (Which makes us the greenest people in the greenest country on the planet
!
2. NZ must prepare for the end of cheap oil, and gas, and petrol and diesel by building more wind power stations, a better grid, more insulated (fewer rented) housing, more hydro power and biofuel infrastructure.
3. In pushing number 2 NZ also gets back towards the point of having credits to sell, making the cost of Kyoto bearable. If in addition to those, we encourage the forestry industry (and everyone else) to plant trees the credits will flow and the money will flow back. At least for a while.
Wood Pellet Fires:
A note on biofuels. Wood pellet fires are between 10 and 20% more efficient than the best woodburners, reduce particulate emissions and provide the sort of automatic control that lends itself to actual central heating and thermostatic control of home temperatures. This is a big part of the appeal of gas… it can be had with wood. Wow, the 20th century finally reaches NZ!
There is exactly one producer of pellets, in Christchurch (I think). They don’t provide service to Wellington, and there’s no backup facility. This makes it chancy to install pellet fires anywhere but ChCh or Dunedin.
Use of wood for heating to replace electricity and particularly gas needs to be encouraged, as it is CO2 neutral. The government should find a way to provide some redundancy and reliability in the production and marketing of pellets. This would encourage the forestry sector (a new market for what is usually simply waste), and push us further along the path to management of peak-oil and Kyoto obligations.
respectfully
BJ
June 29th, 2005 at 2:48 pm
There is allegedly a pellet plant in Auckland as well, and two more plants (to mix metaphores) in the pipeline. I’m not far from Chch and have a pellet fire.