by Jeanette Fitzsimons
Some of the readers here may have heard my interview on RadioNZ’s Nine to Noon programme last week, outlining the changes the Greens need to see in order to support the ETS legislation. I notice that there has been some robust debate here about the need for action on climate change. For most people, including me, that scientific debate ended a decade ago and we just need to get on with it.
For the Greens there are two key principles at stake with the ETS. They are fairness and urgency. The Bill as drafted, even before the government’s recent backtracking on timing, is deficient in both. Half our emissions (agriculture) don’t enter the scheme till 2013. Big business is protected against trade competition, but not small and medium business. Because none of the allocation issues are even signalled in the legislation itself, business is both complaining of uncertainty and crying wolf about how it will send them broke, just to spook the Government. Just look at Rio Tinto – it’s no accident their smelter is located at a place called Bluff.
Problem is, with no guidance in the legislation to what allocation plans are supposed to achieve, the next government, regardless of who it is, is pretty much free to rig the system for their friends without any oversight from parliament.
This is grossly unfair to businesses and households, who genuinely do need certainty in order to plan investments. It also means there will be furious lobbying by vested interests and gaming and special pleading.
Remember why we’re doing this? It’s to get a price signal for carbon into the market so that businesses and individuals begin to change their behaviour in ways that mitigate climate change. We don’t even need to get a huge signal into the market all at once. But we do need to allocate the costs of carbon fairly amongst those who use and abuse it the most. This is why I continue to call for an earlier entrance for agriculture and transport so that our foresters have someone to trade with, and so that the effort is seen to be shared across the economy. Even if this means that they come in gradually. We don’t need to bring transport in at 100% in 2009. But they should pay for at least some fraction of their emissions from that year.
Back in the mid 1990’s, when Simon Upton asked whether we should have a carbon charge or an ETS, I argued for a carbon charge, because this at least gave business certainty of price, even if there was no certainty of environmental outcome. And I knew that businesses don’t invest in new technologies if prices are uncertain.
An ETS should in theory give certainty of emissions reductions, but not of price. However, because this ETS has no cap, with potentially unlimited credits from overseas, it offers neither certainty of price nor of reductions.
In conclusion, we need more sectors in the market, earlier, to get faster action and to allow trading to begin. Having all sectors in earlier, even at lower exposure rates, begins to send the price signals the market needs and ensures a fairer spread of the costs. It would also begin to meet the urgency test. After all, Pachauri says that if we haven’t taken action by 2012, it is too late. Please take a few minutes and listen to the radio interview linked above.
Published in Parliament by Jeanette Fitzsimons on Sat, June 7th, 2008
Tags: emissions, ETS, fairness, Pachauri, price, reductions, scheme, trading, urgency
More posts by Jeanette Fitzsimons | more about Jeanette Fitzsimons
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
>>Pachauri says that if we haven’t taken action by 2012
I doubt he means NZ, and if he does, then he’s not being “scientific”.
NZ should dump the Kyoto nonsense immediately. It is an expensive and pointless distraction. Our real environmental issues will not be solved by a scheme aimed at major c02 producers – who aren’t even participating!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BluePeter, Pauchuri means New Zealand. He is being scientific – he’s the head scientist of the IPCC.
It is by no means pointless to try and tackle climate change. Which is the point of your post.
The Kyoto Protocol (contrary to your confused ramblings) includes virtually every country in the world, except of course, the USA. It was a several step process, with developed countries to cut emissions in the first round, and the rest to step up in the second. The world’s worst polluters – which includes us – need to reduce our emissions, and the rest of the world gets on board at 2012. It may be that deniers and delayers and inactivists have managed to slow the process, but all that does is make the next set of cuts more urgent, and harsher.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Pauchuri’s talking about the world maybe? That we’re a part of?
No man is an island, dude, even if NZ is. Can’t believe you think we’ll be just fine if the rest of the world goes down the toilet.
In another thread, BP says:
“Who gives a toss about what the rest of the world thinks? They’re not listening, and neither should we care less.”
Says it all really. So far your side is winning and we are indeed going down the toilet, but fortunately many people are waking up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No amount of empty rhetoric changes the fact that NZs c02 output is insignificant. If we output ten times the current level, we still make NO difference.
>>So far your side is winning
We’re winning because your schemes are based on lies.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kyoto exempted the developing nations because their per capita emissions were so small it wouldn’t hurt to leave them till later. The EPA exempted pickups and vans from air pollution regulations because they were such a small part of the light vehicle fleet it wouldn’t hurt to leave them till later.
The EPA gave the world SUVs and MPVs. Kyoto gave the world India and China.
The ETS is even more flawed than these two so God knows what monster is going to be unleashed to gaurantee that the solution is worse than the problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP, this is another straw man, as I don’t know anyone who says our contribution to world carbon reduction is the main reason for making reductions. Bigger reasons are:
- We’re in this together and can’t expect others to help save us by doing their bit if we won’t take part to the extent we can.
- We need shift to a low carbon economy simply to survive the age of peak oil. Incentives for reducing emissions help achieve this.
You’re lying to yourself if you’re still in denial about climate change and peak oil.
Kevyn, you’re mixing issues. Many compromises are made due to politicians the world over not wanting to face reality and deal with it fairly. However, developing nations were given a break because their per-capita emissions are so much smaller than in the developed world. You can’t expect such people to make an equal contribution to those who waste energy on a massive scale.
Now we have NZ politicians doing the same thing and yes it will make the ETS more messy than it should be. It is ironic that the Greens pushed for a simple carbon tax just a few years ago that the other parties wouldn’t have a bar of, leaving the ETS the only game in town.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>We’re in this together
So if a group of delluded zealots jump off a bridge, you’d join them?
>>We need shift to a low carbon economy simply to survive the age of peak oil
Wrong. Do I really need to explain why?
>>You’re lying to yourself
The lies are being exposed, which is why Kyoto is tanking. Prove cause and effect between a cap and trade system and global temperature reduction. You cannot.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK, you’ve established your credentials as a climate change denier, so there’s no point wasting my time or yours. Get some sleep.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
While I disagree with BP on many things, I tend to agree with him on emissions trading not being particularly effective. It is why I personally prefer straight forward rationing of fossil fuels.
By the way, I reckon all the discussion on climate change highlights a weakness of the Internet. With information of varying quality so readily available on the web, everyone reckons they’re an expert, even when they aren’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Climate change brought about because of human-caused greenhouse gases and likely to lead to millions of deaths through increased extreme weather events, droughts, floods, and crop failures. New Zealand’s contribution is “insignificant” – perhaps a few tenths of a percent. That translates as being responsible for only a few thousand deaths and only a small amount of misery for the survivors.
BP may consider this “insignificant”, but then BP isn’t likely to be one of those millions. I don’t consider this insignificant. If we can reduce our contribution through cost effective means, we have a moral obligation to do so.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>OK, you’ve established your credentials as a climate change denier
The “unbeliever” defense as favoured by religious zealots worldwide.
>>That translates as being responsible for only a few thousand deaths
This assumes a carbon trading scheme will save lives. If AGW is real, and disastrous, then aren’t mitigation strategies more likely to save lives?
>>through cost effective means
Therein lies the problem. It will be hugely expensive, and will achieve nothing. The opportunity cost is mitigation and adaptation, a strategy which would save lives.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Summing up: BP thinks there’s no problem, therefore we don’t need to do anything.
As a consequence of his views, BP renders himself irrelevant to the debate on action to address climate change. In this forum he’s just a troll, and as everyone knows, trolls should not be fed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP even if what you say is true, it’s likely that a fair proportion of our greenhouse gas emissions arise from inefficiency and we stand to gain by optimising them out of the system(s).
Hill country farming is the classic case where planting the gullies in forestry will achieve a number of benefits. Carbon neutrality (or at least a big step towards it), riparian protection and slowing nutrient runoff (could lead toward N and P neutrality ?), land stabilisation, no decrease in stocking, shelter, wood income, biodiversity, etc.
Yet Fed Farmers don’t want a bar of it. That’s why we need to put a price on these emissions, to drag the dinosaurs into the modern era.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So far, the debate in this thread has talking about C02 emissions, which while still an issue, overlooks the the fact that NZ’s farming sector is a huge emitter of methane, which is a far worse greenhouse gas.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘as soon as people start to state that “the debate is over?, beware, because the fundamental basis of all sciences is that debate is never over’
and what’s debate anyway,
a non scientific population being told over and over again CO2 is the devil?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Henry,
I’m mirroring debates going on in this country. If you can’t convince the masses to pay up, that’s relevant – more so to you than me. Your message is failing to resonate, which is why the Greens are sitting on 5%.
Samiam
That may be true, but then the real issue there is surely inefficient farming practices? Such issues could be addressed in a number of ways, and don’t necessarily require a cap n trade system, which many see as a stealth tax.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
On a lighter note: tinyurl.com/4e4hbz
“As befits his newfound status of MP-in-waiting and protector of the environment, Norman last week launched a stinging attack on the hippos’ bowel habits.”
Choose you battles guys, choose your battles….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP – I get it now! Because my taxes don’t add up to anything significant, I don’t have to pay them! It won’t make the slightest bit of difference to the Treasury balance sheet, therefore I am irrelevant. I’m so glad you cleared this up for me, you old troll you!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You’re right. It wouldn’t make the slightest bit of difference.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>OK, you’ve established your credentials as a climate change denier
“The “unbeliever? defense as favoured by religious zealots worldwide.”
Yes, holding to a faith is how you appear to me too, so we’re even on that one, which is a good reason to stop knocking heads. A blog is not where we can hope to prove climate change to be real or otherwise.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But the onus of proof is on you…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well said caraka!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m sure the amount of money I had to pay for my groceries today was only a small fraction of the Supermarket’s turnover this weekend, but they still made me pay it. BP, can you have a talk to them about this?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“But the onus of proof is on you…..”
That’s just what the flat earthers say and the moon landing deniers too. I choose not to waste my time.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kahikatea
Both analogies are flawed, and support my position.
One customer/taxpayer is “New Zealand”, the tax pool/supermarket is “the total world population”. A few people not shopping/paying tax makes little difference to the end-of-year balance sheet. The flaw is “that every individual is equally responsible for c02 emissions, and is equally capable of cutting them”, which is nonsense.
Put another way, if you go to the supermarket and voluntarily pay triple what you need to for your groceries, you will have less money with which to pay for school fees, the doctor and welfare. Paying triple benefits no-one (except the owner, Al is his name) but does reduce your living standard.
If you are going to voluntarily reduce your living standards, then you better make sure the exercise is worthwhile.
You have yet to demonstrate cause and effect in terms of cap n trade and global temperature, and until you do, expect the voices against your cause to grow a lot louder.
>>I choose not to waste my time
Oh, but you do …..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Proof of what BP… ? That the ETS is the least cost-effective way of addressing the problem as this ETS is currently structured? That’s what this thread is about…
Things that would be more effective and simpler like a straight-on in-your-face-Hummer-Boy carbon tax were blocked by the blockheads in the business community long ago. Things that might do the job now are already more severely debilitating or ineffective. This ETS bids fair to be both.
Lets get real here.
The OBJECT of the exercise is to change the behaviour of citizens and businesses in terms of carbon emissions. Objections to date are largely of the form, “but then we could not do business the way we do business now”.
Doesn’t matter what business we hear from, the template is pretty much the same.
—————-
Now if this is your doubts about the science, trot them out. I’ve played whack-a-mole on these boards for a while now. I think I’ve proved the swindle thing to be a pack of lies enough times. You may have a more reasoned set of doubts.
The key question here, and everywhere really, is not what the science says will probably happen, but what it will probably cost, and just what sort of odds go with the probabilities. It is here that I go to the 6 degrees book and examine the potential effects. Two degrees is about what we’re gonna get no matter WHAT we do and while we can survive it, we aren’t going to be real comfortable with what it looks like.
That is unfortunately the largest change that any economist ever considers and the smallest change the IPCC will allow as being likely. At 3 degrees the issues stop looking like economics. Over 3 degrees and you can kiss most of human civilization good-bye. Want to talk about living in caves and going back to clubs and spears?
Should’ve done something 15 years ago. Particularly the USA.
But the same business objection template is used there. Nothing gets done. If I were to have a project to move the National Archives it’d be to a site more than 80 meters above mean high water. Which might make a neat question to hammer the point home to the pointy haired people.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Climate change brought about because of human-caused greenhouse gases and likely to lead to millions of deaths through increased extreme weather events, droughts, floods, and crop failures.”
If climate change is caused by human activities then why hasn’t some way of limiting the global population being introduced. I love the way people carry on about global warming but nobody mentions population.
Most kids that are being born now have to live in this hotter world so wouldn’t it be better just to lay off having too many kids. And that way you wont have to watch your kids starve in some global warming caused drought.
China brought in a One Child Policy over 20 years ago and is poised to be the next superpower so there are advantages to having less kids.
Here in NZ i read somewhere that there were more children born in 2007 than in any other year, not really the way to a sustainable future with global warming and peak oil looming in the near future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP:
You’re asking us to believe you ahead of the combined science academies of the industrialiased world. Excuse people then for regarding you as irrelevant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
oh and BP, putting aside your irrelevancy as to the existence of AGW, let’s look at your problem criticisms of an ETS:
“You have yet to demonstrate cause and effect in terms of cap n trade and global temperature, and until you do, expect the voices against your cause to grow a lot louder. ”
What part of supply and demand curves do you not understand? Are you really economically illiterate? As the price of something increases, demand for it declines. At some price carbon emissions will be reduced to a degree substantial enough to affect emissions.
The ETS starts off with a modest price for carbon, just to familiarise industry with the system and to not shock economies too much.
Jeanette is right that we need to take the politics out of the allocations. We shouldn’t be picking the winners, and increasing the influence of well-heeled interest groups on our political system.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Domestic carbon charging is consistent with a global carbon charging regime – which should be brought into global free trade so everyone is treated equally.
And starting at low rates and then having a schedule for increasing them, allows those in the market place ot plan ahead.
Hopefully the Greens can see the next step they need to take – by accepting that carbon charging has to come into the free trade system and this is a better option than the current Kyoto path.
If the programme is fair and across the bopard and people are sharing in the committment then something is possible, as it has been de-politicised and is less about national advantage etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC
Greens do not give a cr@p about the mechanism as long as some price is put on the destruction of the planet that is appropriate.
We’re not the obstruction here. We’d accept just about ANYTHING to get a gotverdammt centimeter out of the fornicating financiers and flatulent farmers.
But it doesn’t get done.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Anything but free trade?
I see the issue as bringing depletion of resources into the market pricing system so that the global economy is sustainable, thus the necessity of bringing carbon charging into global trade. 1990 level targets for some nations, do nothing in the global economic sense (not with transfer of production offshore).
As for grassland farmers, I have some sympathy – they are the most efficient producers of dairy and meat products. There is no more effective way of meeting consumer demand that what they do – so what is the point of any market price incentive for them to move to some non existent lower pollution production method?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis, Either I wasn’t clear enough or you weren’t paying close enough attention. Light trucks and vans were excluded because their numbers were miniscule compared with cars although their per vehicle emissions were much worse. China and India were included in the developing nation exclusion because they had much lower per capita emissions even though they have much more capita. Two versions of the same problem.
By the time Kyoto finally includes India and China they will have absorbed the west’s most polluting industries and will have locked into the same worst practices of the west’s consumerism. In the same way that SUVs reintroduced 1960′s pollution and fuel economy standards to cities in the 1990s. In both cases the original exclusion was justified but the failure to provide a timely review mechanism has set back CO2 reduction by more than a decade.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiuela, The oil production plateau of recent years has delivered straight forward rationing of fossil fuels. Long may it continue
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>As for grassland farmers, I have some sympathy – they are the most efficient producers of dairy and meat products. There is no more effective way of meeting consumer demand that what they do – so what is the point of any market price incentive for them to move to some non existent lower pollution production method?
A good argument for a move away from the meat farming methinks? Perhaps the planet/environment can no longer afford the luxury? As the song goes ‘You can’t always get what you want’. There is generally much less pollution resulting from the production of fruit and vegetables. And one could always harvest the accompanying insects (pests?) for protein et cetera.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
roger nome, cap and trade won’t reduce emissions unless it’s a shrinking cap. A cap will only increase pricing to the point where emissions growth stops. Of course philanthropists and governments can always buy carbon permits with the intent of not using them and shrink the cap that way to manipulate the price into an actual reduction inducing range.
But the ETS isn’t cap’n trade anyway, if it was it would be the ECTS.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kjuf
The emmissions regime as for grassland farming will only act as a means to increase the price of dairy products and meat and thus reduce consumption. Why then are Greens campaigning for lower dairy and meat price in Enzed then? Their arguement is double speak.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
personally i would rather a system where each unit of carbon equivlent emmisions produced was accounted for by the same equivlent volume being sequesered. that is, i would prefer a market based approach with an effective cap of zero, eliminating grandfarthering and creating real reductions aswel as creating a real incentive for carbon sequestering projects. the government should act mearly a an enforcer, of course initially there would have to be virtual credits created from the governments kyoto allowence untill supply reached demand.
in other words, put a price on it and let the market sort it out.
I support the Greens ecotax for use of common resources which cannot be renewed or which take place independant of human development but a straight tax would simply not work for something that is essentially a case of production of a good/service (carbon equivlent unit sequestion).
I would happily write up a proposal of the market based system after my exams if i thought it would even be considered. did i mention it creates a new taxible market, source of liquidity, forestisation, and (if you offer tax benifits to native tree based projects) native bush regeneration.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC
What is currently called “Free Trade” is the marvelous mechanism (under US and Eurozone control” in which they can freely sell their subsidized products anywhere in the world, but god forbid that they should stop subsidizing the production, no matter how energy inefficient, of their farm production.
When and if we ever see any actual “free trade” is a matter of speculation that is FAR less certain than the climate science. Right now it isn’t reasonable to even ask for it. We ain’t getting it until someone/something takes the USA off its high-horse and gives the EU an enema.
The price is going up. Free, not free, doesn’t matter. USA has guaranteed that result by inflating the reserve currency. What part of unfair trade is THAT?
When the subsidies stop the prices will adjust to favour (in some cases) the local farmers and production, and local alternatives in consumption.
What your comment implies is that you don’t believe that Green’s want free trade. There’s nothing in my brief here that says this, but we DO oppose the rules as currently formed, which seem to be that “free trade” means we (the US) have full access to your market to sell our subsidized products to compete against your unsubsidized producers.
This of course, also applies to the application of carbon charges, tariffs or taxes…
Forgive me if I seem to be making fun of this idea. My actual attitude is quite a bit more hostile.
Now you may have meant something else. Your comment was not clear as to what you think we are opposed to… Greens have no problem with the market working when it has a price signal to work from and it works honestly. We have a LOT of issues with the way it works now.
Some would like to replace it with something else. I can’t specify the “something else” cause it’s not my idea and it isn’t part of Green policies. The bit about being fed up with the dishonesty of the current form the market takes is real enough though.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
roger
If all 160 signatories fully implemented their obligations, through to 2100, it might delay the warming by five-ten years. Weight this against the cost, which is estimated between 1-3% of gross world product.
No gain. Enormous cost.
Idiotic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@Jeanette “Remember why we’re doing this? It’s to get a price signal for carbon into the market so that businesses and individuals begin to change their behaviour in ways that mitigate climate change”
@BJChip “The OBJECT of the exercise is to change the behaviour of citizens and businesses in terms of carbon emissions”
What a lovely thought.
Of course, what you are really preaching is keeping the emissions just as they are, but having us all pay penances to salve our consciences. Its hard to find a just winner in this scenario you want for us. Certainly not the environment.
Please wake up – you need to regulate emissions, not codify them through the use of taxes. Work to get emissions and electricity usage into the RMA and consents process; actually make a difference.
@BJChip “We’re not the obstruction here. We’d accept just about ANYTHING to get a gotverdammt centimeter out of the fornicating financiers and flatulent farmers.”
Thats exactly what I accused the Greens of doing on the ETS issue just a week or so ago. Anything vaguely green-tinged or washed will do, irrespective of had badly constructed it is. If intended as a statement of fact it is indeed fair criticism. If intended as sarcasm then it fails miserably as reality is too close. As a criticism of both of the big parties, that would be a fair position. As a Green Party position, it is intolerable.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Two things:
1. I get sick of hearing complaints about the symptom – climate change – as if once that’s cured, everything’ll be sweet. Bullshit. Pollution is pollution. Lead, carbon, methane, plastic, whatever. And not just stuff, but processes two. Extraction of resources (gold, oil, coal, fish, whatever) literally vaporises the planet.
At best, “climate change” provides a handle on some pollutants for short term solution, although few to which many governments appear capable of adhering.
2. I’d love to see pollution dealt with along the lines of the Greens’ water usage policy … by shifting the tax basis from income (yay!) to extraction (boo!). Big incentives are needed to stimulate renewable industry. Making carbon expensive is still seen as synonymous with making business expensive, because there are too few alternatives.
Those alternatives – being under-supplied by the existing market – require a boost from government.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Did anyone notice how Parniod Peter’s comment about population was completely ignored by everyone?
Jeanette, I think one point that is always missed about the ETS is that it would maybe have a slight chance of working if every country was on board. The thing that complicates it is that unfortunartely the bit about evertyone being on board can’t be applied to the real world (where the majority of people live).
Even if developed countries did reduce emissions, it does not take into account the growing countries like China and India, where 1/3 of the total world population lives. These countries are already way below the per capita emissions of developed countries (but catching up fast), and the growth of these countries will not stop for you or anyone else.
There IS NO SOLUTION to global warming in the REAL WORLD, so you should be concentrating on how NZ can cope with what is happening, rather than trying to stop it.
I guess that’s why population stabilisation is just as unrealistic as the ETS. Because both solutions would have to be applied in the real world. But at least a stable population (after a global collapse) would allow the world to develop newer (cleaner) technology without having to rush it through (as is happening now).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
DougT,
You write: “There IS NO SOLUTION to global warming in the REAL WORLD, so you should be concentrating on how NZ can cope with what is happening, rather than trying to stop it.”
I think you might be correct, and if you are, it is not a good thing for future generations. What if we collectively cannot cope with what is happening? This is the doom and gloom scenario, and hopefully it won’t eventuate, However, personally am not too confident in humanities ability to cope with a rapidly changing climate and an unsustainable population, combined with the terrible weapons many countries have stockpiled.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kev: It’s a starting point. As the price of carbon increases the market mechanism increasingly impacts emissions.
BP: You’re trying to tell us that you’re right and the combined science academies of the industrialised world are wrong. Tell me again why anyone should believe you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>the combined science academies of the industrialised world are wrong
I freely admit I do not understand the complexities of climate science.
I see people who do, and I see they are spread across a continuum. Which suggests to me one thing…
Their findings are far from conclusive.
After all, Lovelock disagrees with the science academies of the industrialised world too, right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP – not good enough. There are always going to be a number of fringe scientists (usually not specialists) that will snipe from the outside at the mainstream. You’re therefore arguing from a position of political beliefe/hope, not rationality.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If you compare a relatively “settled” science, insofar as science is ever really settled, such as electrical engineering, or evolution, you do not see this level of divergence of opinion.
For example, petition of 30,000 scientists against AGW. tinyurl.com/3pq4jn
(People attempt to discredit the petition, but lets presume half the signatories are valid, that is still a high number)
Also, we’re seeing the models failing.
“…a leading computer modelling team has recently published a paper in Nature which acknowledges what climate realists (the so-called “sceptics?) have always asserted. Which is that, contrary to IPCC assessments, any human influence on global temperature is so small that it cannot be differentiated from natural cycles of climate change. The same modellers have even predicted (after the start of the event, of course) that cooling will now occur for at least the next few years”.
I remain on the fence mainly because the shape of the scientific debate does not look right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“the shape of the scientific debate does not look right.”
What do you mean? Why no source for your quote?
I go with the scientific mainstream on any issure, simply because I’m not a specialist in any area of science. If I was to do any different it would simply be irrational.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP – Unfortunately, the peer reviewed literature doesn’t support your statement about the “un-settled” nature of the global warming science. A pile of signatures is one thing. A pile of peer reviewed journal research is another. In the case of the literature, the debate is pretty settled, in favour of AGW. (As settled as science can ever be, of course)
As for the models, they are always failing, and always being improved. That’s how science got us to where we are today. By building better models! Thank god the Egyptians didn’t wait for the models to be perfect before they went out and built the pyramids, or that the yanks didn’t wait for the models to be perfect before going to the moon.
With your farcical idea of science, we’d still be in caves!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>Why no source for your quote
The NY Times requires a login…
>>What do you mean?
The debate looks far from conclusive.
>>scientific mainstream
It doesn’t bother you that this particular issue is so deeply politicized and lucrative?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
kjuv – our current form of dairy farming is far from the most efficient method and there are more environmentally friendly ways to get the same production without trashing the environment – and the cows are healthier too. It’s called biological farming, it’s taking off in NZ despite the fertiliser companies and the banks trying to kill it, and it is likely to be the way of the future. Start here perhaps?
http://www.bioagnz.com/articles/?a=7
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
>>peer reviewed journal research
But anyone who has ever passed through academia knows that peer review is mostly about acceptability, as opposed to validity. Peer review often suppresses dissent, and is frequently wrong. Jan Hendrik Schon, being but one example.
So the peer review process, whilst often robust, is far from sacred.
>>As for the models, they are always failing
Yes, which is why models, such as the hockey stick, have become farcical, and conclusions revised. Still waiting for Big Al to land his private jet near an editing suite and correct a few “errors”….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP – you’ve got little reason to hold your views. You’re just hoping that the small minority of specialists are right, and the large majority are wrong. Looks like pretty tenuous reasoning to me. Because of this you’re reduced to a conspiracy theory in which all the national science academies of the industrialised world have decided to collectively lie.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I didn’t say they are lying, or in a conspiracy. I suspect their conclusions might be premature, and many, including those within the IPCC past and present, agree with me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The dear old hockey stick – which after its revision looks almost exactly the same as the original. Which when peer reviewed by the NAS, its conclusions were found to be substantially accurate. What a troll!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It’s curious.
On here, I’m a troll. Amongst my friends, I’m “a bit left” for daring to entertain the idea the IPCC *might* be right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
BP – we’re talking about the combined conclusions of all the national science academies of the industrialised world. You simply say that they’re wrong and you’re right because some models run contrary to their conclusions, yet you admit you aren’t a climate scientist and don’t really have a clue as to the science. You’ve provided faulty evidence regarding the “hockey stick”. You haven’t provided one source to back up any of your tenuous reasoning. In short, you’re a waste of space and a troll.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I love you too, Roger
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is the source of the petition.
Seitz is dead already (at age 96) so not able to defend, attack OR change his mind at this point. He might have done so. The whackos with the petition surely will not.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine
“The NAS issued an unusually blunt formal response to the petition drive. “The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal,” it stated in a news release. “The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.” In fact, it pointed out, its own prior published study had shown that “even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises.”
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/12/oregon-deception-project.html
Now point me at the real science please?
Just a reminder of Oreskes
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#
The institutions:
* Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
* Royal Society of Canada
* Chinese Academy of Sciences
* Academié des Sciences (France)
* Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
* Indian National Science Academy
* Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
* Science Council of Japan
* Russian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Society (United Kingdom)
* National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
* Australian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
* Caribbean Academy of Sciences
* Indonesian Academy of Sciences
* Royal Irish Academy
* Academy of Sciences Malaysia
* Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
* Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
and the specific organizations…
* NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
* National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
* State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
* Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
* Royal Society of the United Kingdom (RS)
* American Geophysical Union (AGU)
* American Institute of Physics (AIP)
* National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
* American Meteorological Society (AMS)
* Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
(snagged from Gristmill’s how to talk to series)
Pray tell, what WOULD a consensus look like to you?
The Swindle came up with 5 (oops, make that 4) scientists to take the view that it was indeed a swindle.
Actually BP, you get some sympathy from me, because I DO understand why you’re uncomfortable. I hate bandwagons. I don’t believe everything “most people” say. I’d have a hard time with this… except that almost every bit of real evidence I come across, and some very credible and honest scientists I worked with, tells me that this is something to worry about. They worry about it a lot.
That’s not that they know “what to do” and that’s what this thread should be about… but they have a pretty damned good idea what is going wrong.
We do need to get on with it if it is not to be much much too late, instead of almost too late, if it is not too late already.
Which is what I am right now. CU
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How come you guys spend so much time and effort arguing against blue peter, and when someone like me comes along and mentions that population has alot to do with AGW, you just ignore the comments and carry on pretending that things like the ETS is a sure thing?
Is the effect of population density too hard to factor in to the ETS or something?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You’re usually the voice of reason on here BJ, so I do listen to what you have to say.
The position of so many scientists within the IPCC does give me pause for thought. This is why I’m a fence sitter, as opposed to a denialist.
Climate is a complex system, therefore prediction is difficult.
There are reputable scientists who continue to hold opposing views. tinyurl.com/2jw4b4 Are they “fringe loons” because they disagree with the IPCC?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I still amazed at how much the green movement turns on its own, but noting from comments made on other threads, this forum is not about the green movement but the NZ green party, which can be two very different things.
What I do support is the comments from James Littlewood. If we stopped hanging everything onto climate change we might get going on improving the environment and the world. Where I may disagree is whether, or how much of a role government should play in it. Get the incentives right and things generally flow from there.
Personally I say we still have bigger problems that need be addressed before considering global warming.
I’m not good at linking on blogs yet, but the Wall Street Journal has a piece on Bjorn Lomborg and the work of the Copenhagen Consensus. The title is a different kind of consensus
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121279465120553589.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks
The essence of the article is that there is more important issues the need and should be addressed before worrying about climate change.
I shoudl probably state that I am support having a world that includes humanity, rather than a world where we eradicate humanity as at least one person was advocating above.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Doug T:
Perhaps the ‘overpopulation problem’ is conveniently placed in the ‘too hard basket’ in the hope that it will go away? ’ If you wish to get really depressed try the following link – actually, you may be familiar with the position held: :
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/Population.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kjuv,
I’m not depressed about overpopulation, but I do think it needs to be talked about more openly by people who are so passionate about AGW.
I’m not in Lala land where I think that overpopulation can be sorted out by dishing out condoms and free abortions.
Unfortunately Lala land already has it’s own overpopulation problem.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
At least BP now accepts that New Zealand’s emissions are not truly insignificant. Rather they are small but still significant. BP now argues that the ETS is unlikely to make much difference and that the money would be better spent on mitigation.
The ETS (as I understand it) transfers money from those who want to emit more to those who are prepared to emit less. This means that the NZ Government (i.e. tax payers like me) won’t have to pay for those extra emissions. This also means that there is money to be made by reducing emissions. This encourages such measures, but so far it isn’t working very well.
Mitigation will cost money as well. As BJ points out, sea levels will rise and we will need to relocate significant infrastructure and buildings. We will need to cope with floods, droughts, crop failures etc. This is ongoing, of course, so just how much money will it cost? Lots! Can we avoid it all by reducing emissions? No! Is it more cost-effective to mitigate or to reduce emissions? That is the big question, and the answer as usual is probably in the middle. BP probably things that mitigation is cheaper than emission reduction, but over the long term, I believe this isn’t very likely, simply because a lot of the effects of AGW cause ongoing costs.
Trevor.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Roger Gnome, The ETS is certainly a starting point. The problem is that Labour keeps moving the starting point… like from Christchurch to the Chathams then onto the Kermadecs. Increasingly remote and difficult to move away from. I think that’s why the Greens don’t support the ETS anymore. It needs to start no further away the Mainland – unless the Kermadecs is actually where we want to end up.
I agree that cap and trade is as good a way as any to get emissions reductions. It’s just that the ETS as it currently stands has no real cap and very limited trade.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis, By a remarkable coincidence this Monday morning’s Press included a business section article on the G8′s call for China and India to reduce their $US20bn a year subsidies of energy consumption. The article was pessimistic that they would do this as these states have restricted petrol price increases to just 10% in the last year in order to protect their “fragile” economic growth from the shock of escalating energy costs. Would they do that if they were serious about entering Kyoto2 in 2012? It reads more like they are milking their exemption from Kyoto for maximum economic advantage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
DougT, Kjuv
What i don’t really understand is most people should know about global warming and the effect it will have on the future and the future as predicted by the global warming people is not good.
In a situation like this the natural thing to do would be to stop having kids because the world they will live in will not be very pleasent.
That part of the global warming mix has not seeped into the mentality of the masses. But then again no one in the global warming fraternity has mentioned population as a problem.
Until people connect global warming with population I don’t think very much will be done about it. I personally think it is to late.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I know where you are coming from Peter.
But…
In theory a one child policy similar to China’s would be the only way to bring the population down quickly and humanely, but population momentum will cause the growth to continue for at least 1 more generation.
No births at all would cause the human race to eventually die off from old age with nobody to replace them.
Both scenarios are not possible in the real world for cultural & religious reasons, so neither would really be worth pursuing.
What people need to understand that every living thing on this planet has an effect on th environment (both positive and negative). We also have to realise that people have the greatest impact in the environment (currently weighed more in the negative) purely because (whether from need or want) we consume more resources per capita than any other species on the planet.
What I think some environmentalists don’t take into account is that reducing the impact of each person has no effect at all if the population continues to grow like it is. What they also don’t seem to take into account is that there is no way that a person can have no impact on the environment, so at some stage the sheer number of people (even if they had minimum impact per capita) causes just as big a problem as less people with higher impact per capita. China and India are real life examples of this, and their impact is increasing as they adopt western lifestyles and the associated impact it has on the environment.
The only way these people can justify not including the continued population growth as a complication to “saving the planet” is that they see the growing poverty gap and mass starvation as part of their solution too.
And on the issue of NZ not having a growth problem, I was amazed to hear that 18000 abortions are carried out in NZ each year. As NZ is still growing (not inincluding imigration) at the moment, the argument that developed countries have lower birth rates does not add up.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)